Shariah law and the Archbishop (again)
Archbishop Rowan Williams has today said things that will get certain people hyper-ventilating again:
Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World at One that Muslims should be able to choose whether to have matters such as marital disputes dealt with under sharia law or the British legal system.
…
Willams said giving sharia official status in the UK would help maintain social cohesion because some Muslims do not relate to the British legal system. Its introduction would mean Muslims would no longer have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.Williams said his proposal would only work if sharia law was properly understood, rather than seen through the eyes of biased media reports. The archbishop said he was not proposing the adoption of extreme interpretations of sharia law practiced in some repressive regimes.
1) I don’t buy the view that it will “help social cohesion”. The trouble-maker Islamists don’t really have it on the top of their priority lists.
2) I’m concerned that having separate civil legal systems, especially when in cases where women have less rights than men, will lead to abuses of the system. What if a woman does not want a divorce by Shariah and wants an official legal divorce, but the family refuses? What do you do then? How will she enforce it?
3) It may be “inevitable”, as the Archbishop says, but not for about 20 years I’d say. I see no immediate need for it now. This is just going to blow up into a silly controversy with the usual scaremongering headlines in tomorrow’s Daily Express.
Its introduction would mean Muslims would no longer have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Where the heck do we draw the line between state loyalty and cultural loyalty?
Methinks we should all worship the great Chutulu - no question of loyalty there…
Well said Rowan. I don’t always agree with him but I agree on this. If Muslims want to practise Sharia Law, they should have the option too. As for your concerns Sunny;
1. Agreed. The terrorists don’t care, but the 99.99% of Muslims in Britain not involved in terrorist activities might actually start feeling like members of the state rather than a problem for the state.
2. Do what is legislated in Pakistan in these cases. All cases go through civil law unless Sharia law is requested. If there is a conflict of interests stick with English law as that is the official law of the Land.
3. If you do it now, you might be able to save a generation from growing up feeling like outcasts as we currently do. Or you can wait 20 years and do that.
Sharia is not the answer to all of the social cohesion issues Muslims in Britain have, but will be a fundamental step towards resolving them.
Sunny - I don’t see how separate legal systems can co-exist in a single country. Surely, if that happens, it ceases to be a single country. That will destroy social cohesion.
What do you think will have changed in 20 years time?
“What do you think will have changed in 20 years time?”
The demographics perhaps?
Demographic projections make for very little other than alarmist projections - and who says all those Muslims (even if there are as many as is predicted by outlying demographic projections) would actually want shariah anyway.
This is, of course, separate from whether shariah law might be a good idea - 2 is a hard point, if a default option is based on disagreement, how do you ensure that people feel safe enough to allow that disagreement to occur?
“99.99% of Muslims in Britain not involved in terrorist activities might actually start feeling like members of the state rather than a problem for the state.”
Where did you get this statistic from?
“Do what is legislated in Pakistan in these cases. All cases go through civil law unless Sharia law is requested. If there is a conflict of interests stick with English law as that is the official law of the Land.”
Yeah so you can pick and choose what suits you, and throw the whole justic system in confusion and turmoil.
“If you do it now, you might be able to save a generation from growing up feeling like outcasts as we currently do. Or you can wait 20 years and do that.”
Well! in that case maybe you should look at migrating again. Your parents came here for economic reason you should find a place for your own reason. Why would a state accommodate such nuances for a particular group/community. Next the pro-life will want abortion abolished, anti-animal testing will want the use all unwanted babies to the next guinea pigs etc…..etc….. where does it end.
GROW UP AND LIVE LIFE WITH DIGNITY AND HUMILITY - YOU WILL RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM.
Sorry but the introduction of any aspect of sharia law is neither inevitable or unavoidable.
Are you implying there is ever a need for people to have different laws according to their religious background?
Good example - which seems to indicate that there is no need for it now, nor in 20 years.
Williams’s argument is, on one level, trivial.
If two people wish to resolve a dispute in a particular way in private, whether according to Shariah law or Jedi law, it is perfectly open to them now to do so. So long as they don’t break any existing UK law - and it is unclear whether Williams is suggesting that this would be/should be/will be done.
On another level it is of course as dangerous as hell, with the weaker party likely to be bullied into going along with the Shariah option. Never mind the anti-cohesive implications. Is Williams really that dumb?
I too would like to know why “not for about 20 years” if not the likely demographics.
Sorry - I meant unclear whether Williams meant current UK law should be changed.
Sunny - marriages are a part of shariah law and a vast majority of muslims use it to get married this way. What some also use it for is to marry multiple times because there is not need to register the marriage. This is an abuse…does this mean that it should not come under the law of the country? maybe having to register muslim marriages might stop the abuse…just a thought..not sure how far it would address the problem, but it might put some ppl off..
Platinum:
1. Agreed. The terrorists don’t care, but the 99.99% of Muslims in Britain not involved in terrorist activities might actually start feeling like members of the state rather than a problem for the state.
Introducing Shariah makes no difference at all. US Muslims feel like members of the state more than here but they don’t have special civil provisions.
All cases go through civil law unless Sharia law is requested.
It’s not so simple. If a family puts pressure to go through the Shariah courts and avoid civil law, how will outside legislators have a say?
If you do it now, you might be able to save a generation from growing up feeling like outcasts as we currently do
I’m afraid I don’t see how not having Sharia makes you feel like an outcaste. A majority of British Muslims don’t even want shariah law introduced in the country. Many of the ones who do only refer to stuff like halal meat and banking rather than separate civil courts.
Steve:
Sunny - I don’t see how separate legal systems can co-exist in a single country.
We already have separate civil provisions for British Jews.
What do you think will have changed in 20 years time?
Terrorism won’t be as big an issue, and the fears of it being biased against women will have changed, as more Muslim women become prominent.
Sunny - marriages are a part of shariah law and a vast majority of muslims use it to get married this way.
Well, those are civil ceremonies, not recognised in law.
Sikhs for example hardly care for the court marriage… and real deal is the ceremony at the Gurudwara, as I’m sure the Nikah is for Muslims. But Muslims still have to sign the piece of paper as Sikhs/Hindus do. That keeps us level.
Sunny - that’s news to me. What separate civil provision do we have for Jews?
Sunny that is my point..maybe making provision for it would protect women more…because as it stands..unless you have a civil registration, you are not covered by the law.
what a cool archbishop! proper dumbledor type that rowan williams. imminantly huggable.
Its a good way that he’s chosen to dignify our sharia. i suppose somethings only move when they come from white tongues. All we have to do now is not mess it up, thats a matter of maturity. A progressive society always makes rooms for mutiple legal systems. (cf istanbul and andalus in the better times).
For folks of muslim birth who dont want to buy into any future arrangement like this (for religious regions or unreligious reasons), noone will force you. The predictable whinging, apparently ‘for women’ will come, but i think there’s potential for a more grown up discussion of this in general.
People go to shariah type outfits anyway. Apparently there was a programme on this a few days ago. Muslims need to debate the merits and demerits of pursuing this route. I suppose some people will have developed some ideas already and im interested, especially from the point of view of seeing how religious authority evolves here. Atheists and haters could really help matters buy buggering off and refraining from artificially skewing the debate.
sunny,
why is it about muslim:hindu:sikh parity? we arent in british occupied india anymore…. are we?
religious law is about real life. bring it on if you like. it doesnt need to be dusty and fusty and stuck in books and retarted minds.
fugstar,
When it comes to religious law, I think you will find atheists disinclined to buggering off.
ok ill try and keep calm and not scream, ive been having these tension headaches a lot lately.
!!!!
This is going to be very discriminatory - end of story.
Its very easy for dear Rowan to say ‘oh we won’t go for the extremeShariah in ‘repressive’ States. Does he actually know much about Sharia full stop? What would we be letting ourselves in for and who would decide whose ‘interpretation’ of Shariah we would go for? {I see platinum suggests we do what they do in Pakistan - is he/she joking? Madness!}
And anyway, doesn’t matter where you go - repressive country or not, with regards to divorce, the situation - ie. access to divorce is NOT equal for men and women, under Islamic law. A man has the automatic right without recourse to a court, ( crazy, and he doesn’t have to issue anything written, rather it is verbal) whereas a woman has to go via courts - the only fair option would be to equalize both and have them both go to courts, which is what you would do anyway under British civil law. Much more sensible anyway as it is effectively a Legal binding contract. And that’s not even addressing the confusion about financial settlements. (which is not clear at all i would like to point out to people)
I really hate it when people don’t know anything about what they are proposing, and just propose anyway to ‘keep those weirdos/’the ‘Other’ happy. Moral and Cultural relativity at its worst - at great expense. Many women have been talking about this, but clearly these efforts at recognition of the unfairness of these laws - are in vain. forget it honey, we want to keep “Muslims” happy. As if “Muslims” want ONE thing, and Rowan knows what that is. For fuck’s sake, there is not even agree on when Eid should be celebrated, we have to have like tons of moon-sighting committees. Does this man know anything about what he is talking about? Probably not. ‘Oh just keep them happy’. Outrageous and completely UNACCEPTABLE. At the very least - can he not look into the can of worms he is opening?
You don’t even have to go down the ‘Stoning’ route to be incredibly unfair and affect large no.s of people - given that marriage is a pretty significant thing. Seeing as Islamic divorce law favours men pure and simple, where does that leave us? Who do we think would prefer this recourse to Shariah in the case of divorce? Of course, the other real problem is generic statements about divorce under Islam always imply that men and women have similar access - but they don’t specify - they use the clever fudg-y sort of statements and just keep referring to ‘woman’s right to divorce’. Yes we can go to a “Qadi”, but the bit that no one usually mentions is that your husband will have different rights. And this whole thing is shrouded in mystery.
So In theory, if Islamic law is going to over-ride civil law, and given the lack of equality between male and female rights to divorce under Islamic law, is it going to become a stand-off between when a Muslim male wants a a bloke can say Talaq 3 times, and boom! that’s it, his wife is divorced, and her rights to financial settlements is going to be determined under Islamic law rather than civil law - well what if the woman disagrees with this? ‘Oh sorry honey you’re Muslim so you’re divorced now cos Shariah law applies, had you not been Muslim, you would not be in this situation’. Well that’s discrimination pure and simple -discriminating on the basis of religion.
Religion ought to be a personal thing and not affect what laws apply to you or do not. If not, you may as well be in a religious State.
And if they are going to say, well you should not be a Muslim if you cannot deal with Shariah law - well that is a whole different ballgame. And that opens up another can of worms - the exact nature of freedom of religion when you are born into a Muslim family. What are people going to do - have to announce themselves non-Muslims so the laws cannot apply to them? And What if they aren’t able to do this voluntarily? Is Rowan going to provide sanctuary in his Church? This is ridiculous.
But perhaps his whole intention is to open a can of worms and get everyone to convert to Christianity or something..
Sunny - Do you actually know what Sharia Law is? Most people here don’t and their opinion is formed by grossly poor implementations in the Muslim World or by right wing news headlines that distort facts.
Surely the Muslim Community should step forward and explain what Sharia is and then peopel can make an informed judgement.
Mass hysteria beiung generated by ill formed opinions isn’t needed.
I bet most Muslims don’t know what Sharia actually is.
The Archbishop raises a serious point. He has probably bothered to do some level of research.
It is up to Muslims via major mosques to inform people what Sharia is. That isn’t happening and mosques are poor at outreach.
Even most of the Muslims who comment on PP have limited knowledge of what Shariah is and most people are basing their opinion on Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. but that isn’t Shariah that is simplyjust poor laws.
I’d like to see this properly explained.
A few years ago there was similar hysteria about Islamic Mortgages and when most people foudn out what it was then they accepted it. In fact many people now like the concept of knowing how much they need to pay back for a loan without variable interest.
So lets see what Shariah actually is and then a proper debate can take place. Not without knowing what it is and what rights it gives women.
It is just an assumption people are making that a woman can’t get a divorce under shariah, she can but that isn’t implemented. So exactly what is Shariah Law and what is cultural practise. I bet you now many Muslims won’t know and there will be a faoior amount of cultural thinking in there.
fugstar @ 17
“predictable whining, apparently ‘for women’”…
“[The Koran] told me that no matter how much I read, how much I knew, no matter what love and compassion for people I held in my breast, no matter my intelligence, my talents…I would never ever be as good as even the lowliest of men…I was a field for a man to sow his seed…my word was not to be trusted against that of a man, I was the gateway to hell because men would desire me…How could any system of belief compete with the dignity and the respect that non-belief had to offer to me?” Shabnam Nadiya, poet, translator, writer.
Sonia - You are incorrect a woman has a right to divorce in Shariah and in fact can ask for one. Indeed in most cases the woman is entiled to retain the children as well. But in many Muslim countries this doesn’t happen.
So there is a clear difference ebtween what Shariah Says and how people put it into practise.
That is what I am saying I’d like to know what it is.
Even many Muslims don’t know.
How many Muslim women can inherit in Pakistan - but under Islamic Law they have a right. So you can’t confuse the two, what you refer to is cultural practise.
Here’s the Sharee Council Dr. Fruitloop is presumably endorsing:
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/
Note the differing divorce forms for men and women. Click them to find how the scales are weighted.
Ye gods, it’s even two and a half times the price for women
Good link Bert.
Sonia, I think you should have a look. I wasn’t convinced by your links the last time and made my point to you then. If we are to have an honest debate then Bert’s link is probably a better place to start.
There are two issues here - the battle between the sexes being fought the world over and the discussion here. You refer to divorce under sharia, so I point you to this link
http://www.islamic-sharia.org/divorce-talaq/what-is-the-proper-way-of-giving-divorce-in-islam.html
so you can contrast and compare with your post #20. I am hopeful we will then move on.
Might even help with the tension headaches.:)
‘mo’
well then her reading was rather wrong. deeds and piety. my sympathies for the author for the circumstances of her being misled into thinking that way, but im not paying for her thickness or that cultural jive.
Theres too many attackers of the sharia that dont know squat other than what they have been spoon fed. Expect 1400 years of the work of lawyers, a fair hunk of our intellectual heritage based on our revelations and traditions and intepreted through history to dovetail into a post teenage angstic phase of human rightsism? come on.
don,
Iisinclined to buggering off… but its mean to not bugger off when it wont even impact on non-muslims.
avi,
I suppose its a good time for folks to come out and reclaim the shariah. but frankly i think those people who care or want to know can discover it. the rest is just fun and games and money and pride and ed hussain.
the whole ‘which interpretation are you going to impose’ is rather retarded, like this problem doesnt exist in all forms of law. pfft.
women have the khula provision if they want to get divorced, and they get mehr.
but underlying this. i really dont know if this will make people behave better… more islamically with eachother. it could at least set a public standard to which people can base expectations. lovely londonistan (cant speak for the north) is a bit like Prophet Noahs ark. we’ll be able to pull it off when we are more mature as a community, but the disco and reassurance should start early. A lot of our wise scholars have died, they would have been useful on this matter. i really wonder what late Zaki Badawi would have made of this. We dont have a Mufti like Mufti Ceric of sarajevo… or the infrastructure to produce someone like that just yet.
eid is a good example and theres good unification work going on. Its excruciatingly hard but Muslim perception and internal consultation is changing things (mainly through the WTF?!? approach of the younger generations).
Roger (or is it Mazumadar)
’shiver when the hear of Narendra Modi…’
Tragically those that did shiver were the innocent men women and children as they were being raped, having their throats cut, burnt alive or skewered by the mighty Modiites.
Such brave warriors.
avi cohen makes some very good points, shariah courts are already used for marriages and divorces.
The whole point of having a shariah court to carry out a divorce is to act as arbitrators and to prevent divorce as much as possible to maintain a cohesive society.
Women can ask for divorce and to be honest the reason why she has to provide a valid reason is because a woman gains far more from a divorce than a man! She gets to keep all her dowry non refundable deposit ya get me! and if she has children the ex-husband has to pay a percentage of his income until the children are of age!
So imagine you could have a woman going round marrying and divorcing for the fun of it for financial gain!
As for the man saying talaaq three times, he has to say it on three seperate occasions and have witnesses.
The main areas where shariah would be used would be inheritance and property disputes.
When you mention Shariah people often think of executions, During the reign of the ottomans only one person was ever executed under shariah.
Seems like the saudis are going for 1 a day at the moment!
Fugstar - I agree but the point is that it is the Musl,im community who need to have this debate about which version. Most fo the examples you cite are from Pakistani Imams many of whom have memorised the koran without even knowing the Arabic. So they use cultural norms interspersed with Shariah.
I think the Muslim Community need to say what Shariah actually is. At the moment there are just too many variables for people to make a decision about whether it is good or bad.
Even now people are throwing in vague arguments based on someones interpretation but do these laws apply say under the 4 schools of thought. Is it mainstream thought or simply some poorly educated imam passing on something he thinks is true.
Enquiring minds want to know.
The archbishop has wisdom behind what he said,
By the goverment approving it, it would mean the judges would have to be suitably qualified. None of these dodgy paki peers ya get me!
I know a guy who has studied Islam for 15 years and is still regarded as a novice!
So somebody who is a jurist (mujtahid) will have to done some serious studying.
fugstar,
heh, yeah we atheists have a mean streak when it comes to religious authority.
But could you tell me what specific right or freedom is denied to observant moslems under the current system? Anybody can go to their priest, imam or rabbi with a domestic issue and agree to accept his (always his, right?) pronouncement. That’s counselling with a supernatural twist. I’m unclear about the precise status of Beth Din under English law, but I’m pretty sure it is not a legislated parallel legal system.
If we temporarily drop the term ’sharia’ with all the connotations, is there a particular point which you would like to see legally possible which is not so at the moment? If so, of course you are entitled to advocate it.
Secularists would prefer to see such acceptance of clerical authority dwindle and fade.
The Most Reverend Father in God, Rowan Douglas, by Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of All England and Metropolitan would for some reason prefer that clerical authority be entrenched in law. Can’t imagine why.
Refresh,
re: #31
I very much doubt that is Mazumdar.
However, “Roger” does appear to be on a mission to make provocative remarks re: Modi whilst simultaneously trying to malign PP’s American cousin Sepia Mutiny (look at the URL under his username). On another recent thread here he even used the username “Abhi Tripathi”, who is the main guy running SM and there is no way in hell that comment was actually by him.
‘So imagine you could have a woman going round marrying and divorcing for the fun of it for financial gain!’
Hadn’t thought of that. I’m convinced.
I knew that would get you DON! If you convert now I will get a free entry card to heaven! DO IT!
Heh, I can understand Sonia’s frustration.
Avi cohen says:
I think the Muslim Community need to say what Shariah actually is. At the moment there are just too many variables for people to make a decision about whether it is good or bad.
I think you’re being rather naive here. First, there is no consensus on how shariah is implemented. Secondly, if some very conservative and sexist imam does come forward and says the triple-talaq thing is valid, what are you going to do? After all, you’ve signed up to this measure haven’t you?
Thirdly, why do you think none of the Muslim majority countries don’t have humane interpretations of Shariah? Why? Tell me. It’s because the conservative and repressive versions of religion always win when it becomes politicised - because they like to shout the loudest and are fanatical about it. The same will happen here.
Unfortunately, the Archbishop is doing Muslims a dis-service in the long term.
Thanks Jai, seems a bit underhand.
In Malaysia they have Shariah and secular law.
You can choose which one you would like to use. Seems to work well over there.
Shiraz - thank you for the input but there you go proves my point. There are acceptable reasons why some things are done.
So we all need to know what Shariah is before jumping in.
It is a bit like asking what is this British Culture that is beign eroded!
Also as people correctly point out away from the mass right wing hysteria what the Archbishop said was elements to allow people to practise faith maybe in civil areas. Lets at least keep the perspective of what he said.
Oh thats wonderful Shiraz! We could have like secular law, and if your
harlotwife has cheated you can get her murdered by burying her to her neck, then chucking medium sized rocks at her head until her eyes fall out of the sockets and brains spill on the ground.Seems to work well over there.
Sounds like things in Malaysia are going swimmingly!
I wish people would get their heads of out of their a**es.
Shiraz,
‘So somebody who is a jurist (mujtahid) will have to done some serious studying.’
So you can’t just buy a ‘Dummies’ Guide To Sharia’ and set up shop? Good. By all means find a way to weed out the loopier elements among those purporting to speak with the authority of the alleged creator of the universe. But that is an internal matter, it does not require a shift in the legal status of what are essentially informal arbitration services.
What Williams actually means is vague in a way only senior anglicans can achieve (OK, anglicans and LibDems) but what he is proposing inevitably entails a shift from a legal system, however imperfect, which is based on the informed consent of the governed to one which incorporates the concept of Divine Authority.
We spent too long chipping away at that particular edifice to let it back in now, on the basis of a feel-good factor among a vociferous minority.
Sunny - I am not saying implement it in law but I am saying we need to know what Shariah actually is and I think this can be of grteat service to everyone including Muslims.
Lets at least find out.
It can work both ways in that women may find they have far more rights than the local imported Imams are telling them, which can assist them.
>Thirdly, why do you think none of the Muslim majority
>countries don’t have humane interpretations of
>Shariah? Why? Tell me. It’s because the conservative
>and repressive versions of religion always win when
>it becomes politicised - because they like to shout
>the loudest and are fanatical about it. The same will
>happen here.
Then people including Muslims won’t sign up to it. Surely open debate about this is a good thing as people can learn.
The moment the debate on any Muslim or Immigrant subject is started the right wing press is up in arms shouting in exactly the same weay you describe.
Surely we need proper information and debate.
Also when anything becomes politicsed then even in secular ways the ones who shout loudest win.
Although not as drastic the same papers and commentators made the same fuss about Islamic Finance and now this is accepted and driving forward the City of London in very profitable ways. So lets at least have the debate fairly and learn that is all I am saying.
I am not saying put in on the law book.
BTW The debate on immigration is being driven by those shouting the loudest. So any issue where politicians are involved is driven by those shouting loudly.
Marvin the BNP do the same thing here is it working? NO.
Malaysia is moderate. Anyway the Sharia in Malaysia ONLY applies to the muslims. Whereas the BNP’s law apply to everybody.
DON if the goverment had passes legislation to have english speaking teachers only in mosques we would be in a much better situation. So yes a law is required for Shariah judges.
Im waiting for someone to mention the testimony of a woman being half that of a man. I love that old chestnut.
Shiraz
Destruction of Non-Muslim Worship Centers Riles Faith Minorities in Malaysia
Yes, working well. Well, for people of Muslim persuasion, at least!
My first reaction was this was a sly ploy to get the debate he wants without looking like he’s attacking Muslims…
yes and he has that right to take it to court! Good on him I say!
Seriously, don’t feed the troll.
Don and Sonia, you sound both sound angry. I think only a loud minority of muslims and/or people who are not women and/or do not have daughters are also going to be angry with Dr Rowan’s comments. And rightly so.
I wonder why in a Europe that defines itself as being tolerant, cultured and secure in its identity when anyone speaks up for the rights of minorities that they are bashed in the way that the Archbishop is.
Surely in a society that says its values are so good they need to be exported to those poor Muslims then a civilised debate on such things is good without the Archbishop being asked to resign.
In the same vein why was the Pope not asked to resign when he reinstated the Latin Mass against another minority.
So the rule appears to be speak up for minorities and people want to sack you. Say they are misguided and people love you.
Strange eh!
. Anyway the Sharia in Malaysia ONLY applies to the muslims.
Oh I see….
Malaysia: Non-Muslims Charged for Blasphemy in Islamic Court
Shiraz,
‘if the goverment had passes legislation to have english speaking teachers only in mosques we would be in a much better situation’
That’s a fair point, but does not support the recognition of sharia as a part of the English legal system. Surely it would be better sorted by the mosques themselves?
‘Malaysia is moderate.’ Malaysia was moderate, but can only still be considered so by comparison to the extreme end of the spectrum. Sharia does not only apply to moslems, for example a non-moslem is excluded from inheriting from a moslem. The Bumiputra laws, while not technically religious, place non-moslems at a growing disadvantage.
Hmm that link earlier was from a pro Christian website hmm interesting.
Anyway under Shariah a non-muslim can not inherit from a muslim unless stated in a will.
Anyway the Sharia in Malaysia ONLY applies to the muslims.
Non-Muslims ‘must wear scarves’
Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia
My point is this:
The evidence is showing that all Islamic countries (besides the worst cuplrits already, i.e.) Saudia Arabia, are becoming More Islamic and the Sharia stricter.
If we can have civil Sharia courts, then why on earth should Muslims bother with UK law at all? Surely they should live under the law of Allah?
Bugger, here’s links. What happened to preview?
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1823632,00.html
http://www.indopedia.org/Discrimination_against_non-Muslims_in_Malaysia.html
Yes that was published on a Christian site, though it was sourced from Associated Press…
Marvin - Whilst throwing stones with snippets of information. I wonder if people have ever considered what righst women have in the Mormon Religion in the USA where the law is deemed to be civil. In more extreme cases in the USA Christians can marry as many wives as they wish and the wives have no rights and a man may marry a mother and daughter as has happened.
Killing in the name of religion happens in the USA as happened in numerous religous factions over there.
So for every example you bring the same applies in religous and secular countries.
I was in malaysia a couple of months ago and travelled the lenght of the country I saw many buddhists and many hindus allowed to practise their owns faiths and not forced to wear high jabs.
please try the links again.
Marvin are you also going to start fighting for the rights of muslim in France now too?
Shiraz, Malaysia is a muslim country which has not implemented sharia. I think there is a categoric distinction between a pluralist society and the formal implementation of sharia you need to understand. Now stop throwing down straw man statements.
Marvin - Yes they are and Christian countries in Europe are doing much the same which you cheerfully ignore as of course any European Law is of course superior!
In Italy we have the friendly or shoudl that be fiendly pope asking for the poor misguided Jews to be guided in his prayer.
In Austria Muslims cannot build Mosques that are out of character.
In Switzerland Minarets are to be banned.
In Germany building a place of worship if you are not Christian is so difficult.
In Germany, France and other parts fo Europe people have to be told what they can and can’t wear which is called tolerance.
Oh so civil.
In Saudi they make you wear a headscarg regardless of religion and in Germany and France they say you can’t. So both are imposing their will but you only want to look one way.
Avi, we are not talking about Mormons. (I don’t remember mormon beheadings, stonings or amputations, but thats really besides the point).
Please see the subject of this thread.
Shiraz, decent Muslim citizens of France should have equal rights yes as should any decent citizen. I think legally they do but in reality they aren’t given the same opportunities due to racism.
Ibrahima - try reading what I said. I said lets have the debate I didn’t say put it in law. But at leats let the debate be fair and not the mad hysteria you subscribe to.
Avi, do you have any other ‘tricks’ than your oh-so-lame attempts at ‘moral equivalence’? You seem incapable of dealing with the actual argument at hand, constantly seeking to deflect with, “look, that’s really bad too!” (even when it’s nowhere near the same anyway)
sid i never said sharia is imposed in malaysia, it is offered as an alternative for muslims. Theres even a shariah court on the island of Langkawi, i have a picture if you want to see.
Britain isnt great? your kidding me, where have our british values gone?
The fact is in malaysia the ruling elite are muslims, and you can see why it has remained that way, but you none the less have non muslims in many powerful positions in malaysia in the army, air force and police .
Marvin - The thread is discussing religous law or some aspect of it being introduced. You are saying Shariah is bad - fair enough. But by picking examples you are then we see that in other countries religous laws that deny women rights under different religions are enacted but people find that acceptable. That is the point.
No Mormons don’t do the things you say but they also in the name of religion do many other thinsg which most people would find unacceptable.
As you clearly fail to grasp Shariah then the punishments you speak of apply only if the situation becomes public knowledge. If you knew anythign of Shariah you’d know that in the case of adultery then askign for forgiveness is the preferred course of action. But heh why bother with facts.
Equally amputaion applies if one steals not for necessity such as food. So the laws are complex.
Marvin - you clearly have an axe to grind and don’t want to focus on the issue which is that religous law plays a part in everyday life across many countries of the world even the USA where by law it shouldn’t.
You are simply saying oh look Shariah is very bad. I am saying lets have a proper debate and look at the facts.
I am not saying it needs to go on the law books but lets at least see what the facts are.
Avi, your referring to the Fundamentalist church of latter day saints, the mainstream mormons gave up polygamy a long time ago.
Ignore Bakayoko he was shit for Everton.
My question is: Why is Williams acting as a shill for reactionary muslims?
Ibrahima - The debate the Archbishop started was that aspects and people like you then whip up and read this as all Shariah. Read what the man said that giving the option of some parts should be there.
You are saying this means everything. It isn’t what he said. It isn’t what people are asking for.
Simply put what some people are askign for is that some aspects such as divorce, marriage etc. be allowable.
That is all that was said.
[I’ll go out on a limb her and say that most Muslim women in Britain don’t want to be stoned to death for adultery, cut out of inheritance or be made subservient to men and the wider Muslim community.]
such a limp wristed arguemnt.
Adultery is one of the hardest things to prove in islam, infact its a joke. Why? cos if your caught doing adultery in front of 4 witness then you should be stoned cos your sooo stupad!
ZinZin - Yes to the Church of the LDS.
As for Dr. Williams, I think he expressed an honest opinion of his views. Is it such a bad thing that he spoke out?
I think it is a debate worth having. I don’t think the Muslim community is ready for what he suggested but maybe he felt that with the onslaught of negative press against Muslims then maybe he wanted to be seen as offering some freindly words.
Why is Williams acting as a shill for reactionary muslims?
The consensous seems to be that he’s essentially a kind man, that lives in cloud cuckoo land. He lives in a world of theological abstractions. He doesn’t even sound like he believes in christianity very much.
Perhaps he thinks that by latching on to the powerful Muslim undercurrent, somehow this will elevate the anglican church. He’s misguided, and I don’t think is fit to carry his post any further.
Im not surprised hes said it, the Christian Muslims forum has been promoting this for a long time.
As a muslim, I raise my hand say, I am against the formal implementation of sacred law (of any religion) in the UK, or indeed, in any country for that matter.
Dr Williams is speaking in language that is undemocratic, none-secular and, unless he knows better, socially divisive for the very people (muslims) he is seemingly advocating for. But being the Archbishop of Cantebury, why he iss *not* calling for, say, the repeal of Sunday Trading or making abortion illegal again, is strange.
As for Dr. Williams, I think he expressed an honest opinion of his views. Is it such a bad thing that he spoke out?
He is an Anglican Bishop, he should not be getting involved in this debate? He has forgotten, which faith he is supposed to be defending and propagating.
“Willams said giving sharia official status in the UK would help maintain social cohesion because SOME Muslims do not relate to the British legal system. Its introduction would mean Muslims would no longer have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.”
1. Who are the “some Muslims”?
2. Which parts of the British legal system do they not relate to?
3. Having to choose between “cultural loyalty” and “state loyalty”? Who says that they are either or, or mutually exclusive?
Multiculturalism gone wrong?
Archbishop, who is obviously well-intentioned, is not the brightest bulb in the chiesa?
Superficial understanding of “cultural loyalty” vs. “state loyalty”?
Letting a small, small minority (those who are for the Sharia) hijack “Muslim community’s opinions?”
The list of questions go on and on…
Adultery is one of the hardest things to prove in islam, infact its a joke. Why? cos if your caught doing adultery in front of 4 witness then you should be stoned cos your sooo stupad!
She must have been really stupid, then.
Shiraz,
Some more really stupad girls.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17638
Sharia Shiraz, you see nothing wrong with stoning for adultery, so long as it can be proved?
Shiraz,
I am sure that is the case in some interprations, but in Malaysia currently;
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/267138.html
Regrettably, it has been many years since I was last in Malaysia, but I am pleased to hear that ‘… many buddhists and many hindus allowed to practise their owns faiths and not forced to wear hijabs.’ Phew, that’s all right then.
‘In more extreme cases in the USA Christians can marry as many wives as they wish and the wives have no rights and a man may marry a mother and daughter as has happened.’
Bollocks, Avi. I’m scarcely going to leap to the defence of the mormons, and I am familiar with the sexual exploitaion which exists within that cult (and the cuddly Amish) but that is not embedded in law. Unless you can provide links? Of course the religious are vastly over-privileged in the States, but they are still subject to the law.
If you choose to run your life by religious dictats interpreted by elders, clerics, shamen or charismatics, that’s your call. Personaly, I think it greatly increases your chances of having a fucked-up life, but that’s just me. Knock yourself out.
But we need less input from religious interest groups into the statutes, not more.
I still haven’t heard a single example of a reasonable action someone is prevented from taking because of a lack of sharia law in this country.
Does PP have a nuclear option?
I agree with chrisc in #10; im unsure what exactly Rowan Williams was suggesting, but its perfectly legal to have religious ‘courts’ or any other type of ‘court’ you want. Its really little more than a method of arbitration. As the BBC has pointed out it already happens.
Muslims are free to do it right now.
This debate brings out two different types of people frothing at the mouth. On the one hand are those who would prefer some type of secular dictatorship where no religion was allowed. On the other you have the religious bigots who are determined to feel persecuted, and who would prefer a theocracy.
The fact is i don’t see a need to be sympathetic to either side. The law is more than adequate the way it is.
Hey, this got lively. I was typing a response to #60- ish and it showed up #88.
I love it when you can’t decide who to argue with first.
Dammit, I have to walk the dog.
Sid #80, well said, I take my hat off to you.
I think this discussion is rather pointless, and is more of an opportunity for people to vent and do shadow-boxing.
Unless we know exactly who those “some Muslims” are and what those Muslims take issue with w/r/t the British legal system, I feel like this is yet another sensationalist story.
I don’t think there is an iota of possibility that the Sharia is going to be an option in the UK, and I don’t think anyone is going to succumb to a handful of individuals who want to see this in the UK.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I can only assume Rowan Williams hadn’t researched what the law does or does not allow as it is, or that he hadn’t thought through his own arguments. If anyone else had made these comments i’d have given serious thought to them being little more than trolls.
The debate - on the internet at least - has skewed off onto the usual tangents of who is going to define Sharia, paranoia about muslims being hellbent on forcibly converting the world, muslim extremists advocating a theocracy etc.
But really there are no arguments being made. Both sides are just venting. Although i appreciate Dr Williams meant well, i fear his words do little more than pander and inflame the lunatics on all sides.
Jeesh, Anglican clerics talk a lot of rubbish don’t they? Inevitable? Surely it isn’t even likely? The real question is what on earth lead Williams to come up with this idea in the first place.
avi,
yes its an internal debate really. the space however is rare, but conversations do go on and there are people who take this stuff on as a discipline in of itself. there are initiatives, but the mojo isnt there right now. as we grow older and slightly richer this will improve.
zaki badawi was an azhari btw. its hard to name names on a place like this, and probably pointless. interestingly on matters of the aged, death rites and religious law, its the actual lovers of religion who have the most in common. not the flotsam.
some take interesting fashionable intellectual stances on theoretical islam, but its becomes clearer and clearer as time goes on that they dont actually care for muslims being muslim.
anyway why should only ‘muslims’ be able to ‘opt’ out of law ? just because there is supposed to be some other ‘law’ that applies? then everybody else should be allowed the same opt-out clauses too! otherwise its religious discrimination. what if we invented the God of Marijuana tomorrow and claimed that in order to worship God we need to light up, therefore law making a certain substance illegal - should be waived in my case/all the cases of Marijuana worshippers. Why are we denied our “cultural” loyalty to our weed? Liberty to flount law for all of us -and implement our own codes- otherwise it certainly is discriminatory.
Read what i wrote Avi Cohen - I pointed out a woman can approach a Qadi -(i.e. judge) what I said is that the rights for men and women are NOT equal - a man does not have to approach a Qadi, he can ‘divorce’ just like that. Read the triple talaq link I provided - divorce law in Islam favours the male. Frankly, divorce is a legal matter, it’s a contract - which two people are in, it makes no sense to allow one a particular option and the other another option. Regardless of gender, both parties should have to go through the same procedure, and personally i think it is silly that you would not need access to courts, to ensure both parties are in consensus.
And sure fugstar - “no one will force you” . Sure buddy! just like no one forces us to keep our religion - OOH no, we’re so liberal, why we allow everyone to leave our religion left right and centre!
And as for Islamic inheritance - again Avi Cohen, perhaps you are fooled by linguistics. Of course a woman has a right to inherit under Islamic law - it just isn’t the same as the amount her brothers will inherit. Which some people might find acceptable, but I certainly don’t.
Frankly, the mediaeval argument was “ooh!” look she is inheriting! isn’t that nice!” Compared to not inheriting anything but the inequality with what a male is entitled to inherit - sorry that just won’t wash in the 21st century, and certainly not from a so-called ‘fair’ God.
Yes Sid of course i’m angry. Not because i think there is much chance of Sharia being implemented here, but because so many people ( and so many Muslims) don’t actually have the foggiest idea what they’d be letting themselves in for. Yet so many of us from elsewhere who are subject to these horrible laws - and are talking about the injustices, and no one listens. Then along comes someone and blithely suggests implementing the same nonsense here. Of course it’s bloody irritating. It implies we’re spending all our time for no good pointing out all the inequalities of islamic law!
sid - 72 - well said.
Refresh I think YOU should have a look mate. Listen my beef is I dont care how much time Mr. man has to wait before he says Talaq again and in front of how many witnesses, the point is it is the procedure is different for a man, than it is for a woman. Now I understand YOU and all the other weird people in the world might not have a problem with this, but I CERTAINLY do. DO NOT EVEN DARE suggest it is because I haven’t looked into this enough, therefore that is why i am ‘upset’. In fact, if a woman is in the know, she can stipulate into her pre-nuptial contract that she have the same right to divorce as is given to the man automatically (i.e. without having to have a legal document showing that) - the Mullahs and all the Sunnipath and other million and one websites talking about this on the net point to this - and say! look at this! My point is again - most women do not know about this, do not include the clause in their pre-nuptial contract, and why should they have to do so? I am saying to you that I THINK it is unfair. As a good Muslim you are perfectly entitled to think that is acceptable to you - that is your business. But I have looked into this a lot because 1) it affects me directly - I am defined as a Muslim in Bangladesh, divorce rules that apply to me are the Islamic ones. Comprendez? So yes I think it is highly problematic, and typical of Islamic law - it does not give us women equivalent rights. Oh yes! we can divorce, oh yes! we can inherit, but we do not have the equivalent rights our husbands have. I have a big problem with this, and frankly i’m disgusted that you don’t.
why thank you Sunny. i’m glad someone understands.
I suppose I do turn into a militant frothing feminist when Sharia comes up.
yes, anyway, it is interesting to speculate on why Old Williams would say such things in the first place.
Sonia - As you speak with such expertise and lack basic knowledge of the reasons why things were done it is frightening that so many people listen to you here.
Inheritance - A woman gets less but is free to do with her money as she pleases. A man gets more but it comes with conditions that it must be used to look after the family hence no freedom of spending but more responsibility and needs thus more money. Simple.
If you knew your own history you would know that the University in Fez was founded by a Muslim Woman using her inheritance as she was able to spend as she wished.
Divorce - A woman is free to ask for a divorce like a man. It is the interpretation that people have which you are referring to not the actual Islamic Law. Even amongst the Salafi Movement which is the most rigid this is accepted and I have asked them this and they said this was correct.
Again I refer you to Islamic History where as ruler Abu Bakr in a child custody case ruled with the ex-wife of Omar against Omar. The woman gets more out of the divorce hence the different rules.
You are simply twisting what the legislation is to suit your cultural issues. As I said earlier there is interspersing of culture with religous laws.
I do agree that many Muslims don’t know but the sheer fear you are trying to spread with such limited knowledge is the reason why there is such a fuss being made.
As regards equal rights there is no such thing and I am digusted that you pretend even here there are. Women complain that they are not treated equally and you speak as if they do. If women have equal rights why are they paid less than men in most cases? Why do women retire earlier, why until recently could they not fight?
Equal rights is a mantra that will never be achieved in any secular society or religous society.
You are simply repeating fears and I say again I would like to know what Sharia is, not enacted in law but what is it? I’d like peope who know to tell us then we can make an informed choice, all of us.
If you want to compare religous law then that calls for everyone to be taken care of. Now we have secular politicians saying we should make people homeless if they don’t work. Which is nonsense.
Scare mongering isn’t what is needed. What the Archbishop said was that aspects of Islamic Law can be used in British Law. He didn’t say all, yet you are jumping up and down without understanding what he said.
If people got their heads out of their behinds then they would know that this is already happening. Dietry Laws have a place on the Law Books. The issue of accomodating Islamic Loans and not paying double stamp duty is on the Law books.
For crying out loud it is already there and people are in mass hysteria over a suggestion that where people want in civil issues they should be allowed to use their religous beliefs. What the hell is wrong with that if they believe it?
Secularists often talk about freedom but want to curtail it for people of religion thus denying the very thing they claim to defend. It simply makes them the dictators they say the other side is.
Dr. Williams started a debate and again there is nothing wrong in that. If a Muslim woman chooses of her own will to use Islamic Law in civil situations such as marriage or divorce then where is the problem as long as she has the right to use domestic law?
Why do you have to mandate to everyone what they can and cannot do? Maybe another Muslim Woman wants to make a different choice whihc you are actively denying her.
What he said was that where people wanted they should have the option in CIVIL LAW - Civil Law. Why can’t people have the option? If they want to marry or divorce according to Islamic Law, Christian Law, Hindu Law where exactly is the problem. They make a choice that they may get more or less but they are adults and should be free to make that choice.
You are saying you want to deny them that choice? So what gives you a greater authority because you consider your research better than there’s.
You are advocating freedom based on your own options only which isn’t freedom but a dictate.
Also someone kindly explain to me that if there is one law for all then why on earth do Bishops sit in the House of Lords? What about one law for all?
Why is it that Blasphemy laws exist to protect one religion.
Why is it that the Head of State id Defender of The Faith and not Defender of Faith which is more inclusive?
The hysteria is over things that Dr. Williams never suggested and to bring them up is simply a false argument and gross distortion.
His central argument was fundementally correct that if you want inclusion then you have to cater for some aspects of people’s personnal belief in a limited set of civil areas. That’s all he said. The man didn’t say that people should be stoned or limbs amputated.
At a time when all politicians are talking of inclusion in society and people not feeling alienated. Then when a senior clerical figure makes a suggestion of something to bring cohension then all hell breaks loose.
Really - some of the kind of people that frequent PP - nowadays !! Avi you really are one stupid bloke, if you’ve got something ‘more equal’ why would you want to go back to something that was less equal? Well that’s your call. Personally, I have looked into it, and if I had to seek a divorce, I would prefer to do it under British civil law than under Islamic law. Of course, as i pointed out, this is not ‘theory’ for me, as a Bangladeshi female, and also being married in Bangladesh, should I seek a divorce there, I know full well what I am entitled to there. These are not theoretical scenarios - they are real, and I am actually really lucky, because I have a *choice*, which many other Muslim women (not British Muslim women) don’t. Now you can say what you like, but that’s the way it is. You’re lucky it doesn’t affect you, that’s what.
Just goes to show, what kind of stupid people in the world go around keeping up ridiculous states of inequality. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself, yes you should.
Sonia - it is you who should be ashamed, as rather than providing proper arguments you are simply repeating you own prejudices.
You dictatorial approach means that Muslim women in the UK who choose to go down a religous road to divorce are denied that right by someone who speaks of personal freedom and yet wants to deny that right of choice to others.
If you read what I said and what the Archbishop said you’d see that it allowed for both choices.
You should be ashamed of yourself for denying people a right they make of their own free choice.
If as you say British Law is so good then why are so many Muslim women choosing to wear Hijab, go to Islamic Courts etc.? If it is so unequal. It is a belief they have and they have the right to make that choice. It cannot be dictated to by someone like you.
Frankly your nonsense is silly as I didn’t say you couldn’t get a divorce under British Law, I said that people should have the choice to follow their religous beliefs in civil law. Even if they get less but it is their belief then where is the harm?
Tehy are making that choice.
You simply won’t answer the central point. You speak of freedom but want to deny that freedom of choice to others.
That is all that is being said.
Frankly if that makes me stupid then I wonder how much worse that makes you.
Sonia, thanks for the response.
‘I am saying to you that I THINK it is unfair.’
If that is your argument, then the rest of your very long post was ignorant and irrelevant. And that is my point. You need to be specific, so that we can explore the particular point which you find unfair.
You will have to leave your personal experiences aside (which to me, now a seasoned observer, seem bizarre) for the moment and differentiate between cultural practises and religious guidance.
Consider the unfairness of it all. Until about 20/30 years ago a woman could not get a loan for a washing machine let alone a car or mortgage for a house. Unless you are 20/30 yourself that is not a long time ago. womens’ lives were in the hands of the men. And I won’t say the men loved it, because they probably knew no better. As for the divorce laws well they too were archaic, and you can imagine they favoured the man; as for child custody what you see now in civil courts was only derived over the last few decades.
So my point is what you see around you probably looks as if it was always there - but its all novel. Thirty years is nothing in the scheme of things. There is a lot we have yet to discover about ourselves and amongst ourselves.
Tonight I was discussing this very issue, like probably most households up and down the country and we concluded (within 2 minutes), that this was a non-debate. And as examples we considered how gypsies, travellers, jews, hindus, sikhs rule their personal lives - and decided that we’ve all been doing it and will continue to do so regardless. Regardless.
‘As a good Muslim you are perfectly entitled to think that is acceptable to you - that is your business.’
If this was intended to be patronising, then I have to tell you you are a mile or two off-target.
Because that is human.
Also someone kindly explain to me that if there is one law for all then why on earth do Bishops sit in the House of Lords? What about one law for all?
Good of you to call for the banning of Bishops (and, for that matter, Chief Rabbis) from the House of Lords. Hence, good of you to call for the separation of religion from state and from the law of the land. Because you’re natural religious prejudice compels you to, you bite the hand that the Archbishop is foolishly extending out to you. And in effect you are saying that theocratic law should *not* be part of the law of the land, which should remain secular. Nice job.
Damn- where’s the preview button!!!
Delete the last line or read it before the last quoted sentence.
Sonia - it is you who should be ashamed, as rather than providing proper arguments you are simply repeating you own prejudices.
Avi - please stop being such a dumb numbskull, and actually adress Sonia’s points.
Your points are contradictory to a laughable extent. Do you want more legal equality within sexes and reigions/races or not? If you do, then don’t justify inequalty by saying “well women get less money but they’re allowed to do whatever… yada yada”.
On the one hand you talk about blasphemy laws favouring one religion (which should be repealed, and they will given time) and on the other you supposedly are happy to perpetuate inequality.
You’re not only confused and annoying, you’re quite patronising.
Refresh, try and construct arguments on why the Archbishop is correct and, being as you are a sharia advocate, how you intend to see the implementation of sharia, rather than reel off personal attacks on Sonia, which frankly, exaggerates that defensive patriarchial tic.
In addition Sonia your dicatorial approach leaves women who want to divorce Islamically unable to follow their own religion and marry again as in their opinion they won’t be divorced. Thus making the lives of those women harder.
The law should help and provide protection for people. By bringing in civil law in such cases then it helps those people to practise their faith and be inclusive in society and to carry on with their lives according to their belief should their marriage break down.
But petty people want to deny them that. If you are so sure and strong in your belief then go to the Shariah court and say so and tell those women who are there due to their belief that they are wrong.
Why are you wanting to deny people the choice based on what you know when they believe differently?
You just won’t answer the central question of choice and varying belief and instead resort to calling me stupid.
Just because Bangladesh practises it one way it doesn’t mean that is proper Islamic Law, it may be a cultural aspect. As you yourself admitted people’s knowledge is limited.
If people accepted your arguments then why is it that Muslims go to Islamic Courts, men and women?
In your world are they stupid as well?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3330657.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=989864
Tell me do you eat Halal meat or just any meat from Tescos and Sainsbury’s?
Some people say that Halal is worse on the animal so that is less equal to what everyone else says. So should we then have common meat slaughter?
It shows how limited and poor your own argument is when you resort to name calling.
You simply won’t answer the central point. You speak of freedom but want to deny that freedom of choice to others.
Her point is that by offering a “choice”, women can be coerced into accepting religious rulings that are biased against them.
Would you be happy then for the law to step in and overrule religious rulings if it deems that a woman’s rights have been violated?
Jeez, you really are confused and contradictory.
Just because Bangladesh practises it one way it doesn’t mean that is proper Islamic Law, it may be a cultural aspect. As you yourself admitted people’s knowledge is limited.
So where exactly are you going to get these people to prepare Shariah rulings from? Tell us? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Pakistan? Bangladesh?
Sunny - You’re not only confused and annoying, you’re quite patronising.
It takes one to know one.
Tyr actually reading what I said. I said people should have a choice as to what they do in some situations in civil law to cater for their belief. How hard is that for a media star like you to understand?
I said that there was no such thing as one law for all, and the example of blasphemy laws was to highlight that.
I didn’t perpetuate equality I said people should have the choice to follow their religous beliefs in civil law where possible.
You one sided bias is laughable and once again you jump in and attack people without reading what is said.
I said people should have a choice - tell me whatis wrong with that? If a person chooses by their own free will to go down a religous route why should we or the state care?
That is what the archbishop said. Sonia said that because she has done some research then she doesn’t believe taht should happen. Get it???
I am saying Pro-Choice. Sonia is saying no choice.
The explanation about the inheritance righst was to correct the statement she made which was that men get more and women less. I simply explained the reason. I didn’t say it was right or wrong eitherway. With respect that should be hard for you to understand that it was an explanation of the detail rather than favouring one side or the other.
Why don’t you answer the point - why can’t people chhose and why do you and other secularists need to decide for them?
I’m an atheist and I don’t relate to the British legal system either.
Screw “their” law - and that applies to any group who want to be the “they” who decide what “their” law is.
Ignore the so-called “law”!
Do what you will, just live an