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.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Religion
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 and let live and always consider the impact of your actions on the “bigger picture”. What if everybody did as you did?
I try never to do anything that impedes anybody else’s ability to have exactly the same freedom. I think I largely succeed – maybe almost entirely, at least in those matters that are directly in my control. Yes, even down to the things I do (or rather, don’t) consume, because every single thing we do has consequences.
I don’t need no stinking laws to tell me what’s right and wrong, or to prevent me harming other people or the planet – and neither do you, or anyone else!
Dispute resolution is tricky, but is also a simple process. Empathy, understanding, respect and impartial mediation are the keys.
I try to always consider the consequences of my actions in the fullest extent, and treat myself in a brutally honest fashion.
Love is the only law.
The rest do not apply, and never will. The real prison is the one in our minds.
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?
Yes
But do you accept she should have a choice? Come on answer the question?
So where exactly are you going to get these people to prepare Shariah rulings from? Tell us? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Pakistan? Bangladesh?
They are already here from all those places. Why can’t you understand that. People go to unofficial courts already. It is better to bring this under control and provide protection. But how difficult is it for you to understand that this is already happening.
So give people the choice and try and legislate for it.
If it results in an amicable settlement fine if not the courts can take over.
Try watching Newsnight – people already go.
Sid, you’re right I shouldn’t personalise. Apologies to Sonia.
I am not really interested in what the Bishop said, I am much more interested in the heat it generates.
What I want is an opportunity to explore how these matters are working now, how they could be improved and why anyone would be against it.
Bear this in mind, its a whole new world to me too.
I personally do not see the need for the Bishop’s intervention. One of them speaks kindly about muslims and they get stuffed, the other stuffs muslims and the jackboots come out.
Perhaps, Sid, you could give a response to some of the points I’ve made in my last post. I would find it interesting.
“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!”
erm.
If one would like to choose a different path, thats always available. Theres differences of opinion on what ‘leaving’ and ‘betraying’ mean. No one can force a person to believe, its opt in. its between the human and God at that scale. We dont really have a big science/atheism/religion battle in the tradition there was no magesterium unless some cheeky sultan was trying to take out a political grudge. We are more interested in the nature of God and finetuning that understanding. Then we went and got ourselves colonised, which was a major bummer because of the gap.
The higher objectives of the sharia have been described as the promotion of religion, life, lineage/dignity, intellect and property. Theres been a lot written on this idea of maqasid al sharia, if you google a good paper comes up by muhammad hashem kamali who is based at the International Islamic University of Malaysia. His work is quite intelligable to us who come from quite a western educational backdrop.
If anyone’s even more interested theres a translation of imam shatibi’s, a founder of the subdiscipline (andalusian d1388 CE) by ahmad al-raysuni. Islamic thinkers are big on maqasid these days. The idea seems to have attracted an eclectic bunch of people from a lot of the fields of religious, social and physical sciences.
Its a good place to start, helps consider things of essential value in proportion. It kicks the millenium development goals’ arse because of its accessibility and its esssence. The higher objectives are tools that the lawyers came up with in order to quality control rulings derived from the various methods that they used.
The marriage law has a lot to do with kids knowing who their father is and a strong approach to sexual morality.. its the lineage/dignity element. Theres a lot more misery in family life these days than there was before, i guess. its time to reduce that.
avi,
on the 4 madhabs. theres the thing with the timing of mid afternoon prayer, north africans and co to it a little earlier, south asians prefer one shadow length(2) later. its perfectly managable in practice. ive been in villages in bangladesh where neighbouring mosques do the different prayers at different times just next to eachother. its no biggie in real life because both are based on a sound basis.
What i admire about Dr Rowan is that he’s speaking in an admirable english tradition of openness, humility and exploration. Theres not many people like him who make public pronouncements. We need more of these gandalfs.
We all say we live by certain values but he’s translating his with integrity, and firmly. Its quite far for him to stick his neck out actually, i wonder what happens next. is it going to go all canadian? or are we lucky that the proregressive community presence is less and generally regarded as irrelevant.
Sid – There is no country on earth which seperates religion and state. There is legislation and influence both ways.
Sunny – What guarantee do you have that a woman can’t be coerced in a normal court of law. Lawyers can put great pressure on to deny a woman her rights by using threats and that is perfectly legal and aceptable. The fact that righst are there in UK Law doesn’t mean the woman will get her rights. Lawyers will use all means to maximise things for their clients so in both systems a woman can lose.
Just because the law allows for equality doesn’t mean the woman will get it or even get to the point of going to court as she may be coerced into accepting a settlement which is less than equal.
So why is it that you and Sonia only view this as possible in Shariah Law and not normal law?
Your bias and one-sided approach is stunning. A man or woman can be coerced either way which doesn’t make either law bad but those that practise it are bad.
In your world religion is usually bad and secular is usually viewed through biased rose tinted glasses.
You’ll usually jump in on the side of those that argue against religion.
In reality all I said was I’d like to see people have a free choice. At the moment they don’t.
Fugstar – I agree that he spoke with integrity. It is the reaction of people which is alarming. All those that speak of freedom and choice are a little dictatorial when it comes to religion.
When an Archbishop says something in favour of allowing people more religous choice then people are up in arms. When a former member of the Nazi Youth who is now Pope incites racial aggrevation with a dodgy prayer then no-one bats an eyelid.
All the prejudices are coming out amongst the media superstars here.
No they can’t.
“Sid, you’re right I shouldn’t personalise. Apologies to Sonia.”
Why it is ok for her to call people stupid backed by her media buddy.
Avi “Stupid” Cohen
if the brits pass this law.
they should pass the hindu undivided family law..
where the son gets daddys wealth without any extate taxes.
different laws bu equal opportunity for all
“No they can’t.”
Yes they can. In preliminary discussions they can threaten to sue for child custody, say she’ll get less and so forth. Thus coercing the woman to accept an inferior deal due to fear and pressure.
The law is fine in theory but in practise lawyers can negotiate before court and then persent any settlement as mutually agreeable.
You cannot deny that happens.
Don’t know much about the law clearly Avi – if lawyers tried that the case would be chucked out. Sheesh. You’re all hot air.
I said people should have a choice as to what they do in some situations in civil law to cater for their belief.
But you’re not answering the point – what if they don’t have the choice? In theory women in Arab countries have plenty of rights under Shariah. The reality is somewhat different. Try living in the real world than the theoretical world please.
Just because the law allows for equality doesn’t mean the woman will get it or even get to the point of going to court as she may be coerced into accepting a settlement which is less than equal.
But you accept that a legal system that strives for equality is better than one in which inequality is plain to see?
A lawyer cannot deny a person their rights anymore than a postman could. You wouldn’t even have to bother complaining to the Bar or the LCS you could just call the police. A lawyer doesn’t decide how much either party recieves on divorce (which i presume is what you’re alluding to).
Anyway, it’s not going to happen and it shouldn’t happen for another 20 years or so… end of discussion really.
Lawyers don’t go around forcing their clients into settlements they don’t desire before lying in court.
Yes i can!
Sunny – less hot air than you. If things are so equal then why do women complain about their lot even in the western world?
You whole approach to debating is to hurl unpleasaentaries at people and to act as if you know best. Your spectacular failure to actually understand what the Archbishop said or what I said is rather sad. Is it difficult to understand the point is about giving people choice within the law and have the law as backup to protect them. Is that so difficult a point to grasp?
Your approach to debating meant that not so long ago one of your close friends on this list left in tears, which shouldn’t happen. At least try and listen to what people say and it would be nice for all if you stopped your unpleasantaries.
“But you’re not answering the point – what if they don’t have the choice? In theory women in Arab countries have plenty of rights under Shariah. The reality is somewhat different. Try living in the real world than the theoretical world please.”
Sunny with respect you are jumping all over the place. The discussion was to do with allowing some aspect – some aspect – of religous law into civil law in the UK. I’ve answered that point a lot of times.
You are now derailing the thread by jumping to Arab countries to try and prove your point. Did Dr. Williams discuss Arab countries or giving people a choice in this country?
What did I say that both choices should be available in this country – in this country. You then asked would I back a court imposed choice if the religous verdict was unacceptable and I said yes. I have answered your question. Now answer mine please sir – what is wrong with giving people a choice and protection via law?
The debate was about this country.
Anyway about the Arab world I agree with your point. But with respect you are creating hysteria about religous law when in fact it is implementation which is an issue.
As I have said to you before law – any law is judged by how it treats everyone. The law – religous or secular – needs to treat everyone fairly. I say to you again that I am saying people should have a choice and protection via the law. The courts are there to step in and correct unfairness.
As has now been pointed out on more than once occasion.
Muslims are free to set up their own ‘courts’; jews already do.
“But you accept that a legal system that strives for equality is better than one in which inequality is plain to see?”
Yes all law – religous or secular – need to be fair. Everyone should have access to justice.
But the law also should where possible try and cater for people’s beliefs if it doesn’t harm others. Do you accept that people should be allowed to follow their belief as long as it harms no-one including themselves.
Also Sunny you need to remember that laws are there to be adjusted as society needs.
What I fail to understand is why the hysteria about giving people a choice and to protect that choice by backup via the courts? Why are you so against that?
Your whole approach may stop people from remarrying as they don’t feel they have divorced correctly.
It does.
Avi,
‘Why it is ok for her to call people stupid backed by her media buddy.
Avi “Stupid” Cohen’
I am sure both sides personalising matters will not help debate. I’d rather get to the bottom of what is troubling her.
As it happens both you and Sunny are making a similar point: If the choice is theoretical its no choice at all.
The goal is and the ambition must be that the theory in practise is made to work. And I am of the view, given the openness and the freedom to debate we have here is probably going help fine-tune sharia, and no one should dismiss alternative ideas and ideals – otherwise we risk all being fossilised.
With regards equality, Sonia raises some useful questions related to equality. One is that it is easier for the man to divorce his wife than the other way round. The others probably relate to custody of children and property. These should be addressed.
If anyone can map out the equality issues then we will get moving.
Kulvinder – “Muslims are free to set up their own ‘courts’; jews already do.”
But what the good Dr. said was that these courts should have some basis in civil law so that people were included in society rather than excluded.
Central point. The courts are unofficial. He is saying give them some basis.
If they are there and being used then what is the harm in bringing it under control of the law with civil law to back them up in case of unfairness.
Noone has yet to provide an argument about what is so wrong with what he said?
“As has now been pointed out on more than once occasion.”
He said I wasn’t answering the question which I have multiple times now. Tell him to stop asking and read the reply then – there are enough of them repeated!
Sunny Bhai,
Blogs can delude us all into false confidence about the depth and competance of our views oneveryrandombrowncurrentaffairstopicunderthesun, because of the swarming effect. Theres a lot of things really wrong here about the manner of the stuff being talked about, what some people can get away with and not get called to task on. Just wondering if that ever crossed your mind.
‘next generation’ shouldnt be an alienating reactionary generation with an embarrasing ignorance of their own religious heritage. thats just really really naff.
and whats with this ‘dont dis XXXX he’s a mate’ type attitude?
anyway, maybe im taking this too seriously, its probably all just a joke.
Why would you care that they’re ‘unofficial’?
They’re religious ‘courts’ under gods (well allah’s) law, do you really need the law of men to recognise them? The premise of those ‘courts’ is to defer to a supernatural authority; why would what non-muslims say make them any more official?
By the way if someone wants a divorce there should be nothing to stop them. So its really about the details and they are simply this:
1. Property
2. Custody of children
3. Maintenance
There is nothing else. So lets be cynical. Can someone do a comparison and see who gets more under which ‘law’. A chart for all the different faiths would be handy.
In the end there is absolutely no need for all this heat. Which is what Avi is actually saying.
“If anyone can map out the equality issues then we will get moving.”
Look in religion each sex has their own role. In secular they have a mantra of equality which in reality raely exists which is why many women in the wets say it is a Man’s world.
The complaint is about inequality in some aspects – divorce and inheritance. I’ve explained the resons.
In other aspects a woman has more rights but again the one complaining fails to show the complete picture insteads focussing on the two issues which support the claim.
In Islamic Law the woman in entitled to the children until they are of an age of reasoning. That is unequal in favour of women. In secular it is up for debate.
In Islamic Law the earnings of the husband are for the household primarily and those of the woman she can do with as she pleases. It is unequal in favour of the woman.
And so forth.
The issue is about roles each plays in society and giving laws to protect that.
In the UK a male heir to the throne has priority over female but apparently we are equal in gender rights!
So in secular and religous laws there are inequalities.
But should the secular deny the freedom of choice to the religous? Dr. Williams doesn’t think so.
Avi “Stupid” Cohen
Kulvinder – The point is that for the betterment of society and to stop this nonsense that they (Muslims) are different to the rest; then they should be included in civil law to some aspect.
Those of a religous persuation probably don’t give a hoot if they are official or not.
His point was to make it mainstream so it draws away from this them and us debate and eroding british culture.
Avi “Stupid” Cohen or should that be “Stupid” Avi Cohen or possibly Avi Cohen “Stupid.
Please vote on your choice!
I presume this is a summation?
Cool we’ll stick with that one then.
Avi
Firstly you are not stupid, as I find your contributions to be thoughtful.
As for the equality issue, don’t misunderstand me. I believe there is no such thing as ‘technical equality’ which is a feminist argument of the 70’s. However we should have equality in the round. Which is close to the argument you are putting up. But I don’t know, I just don’t have the knowledge, and I do want to know.
Dangerous territory this so I need to be careful, and I will throttle anyone who wilfully chooses to misunderstand me (yes man or woman).
But Muslims/Christians/Jews/Sikhs/Hindus are different. This is turning into the weirdest cicular argument.
‘I want the right to settle according to dianetics’
‘…you have it’
‘No, i want the right to settle according to dianetics’
‘…you still have it’
‘No i want those judgements made official’
‘we’re all SPs, why do you care if we recognise your faith’
‘because you think im different’
‘you are different, theres nothing wrong with that. Everyone is different, the law recognises that and gives freedom for everyone’
There is a question that needs to be answered.
I can understand that the Archbishop would have put up the argument in support of social cohesion, but there’s got to be a very good legal reason why muslims would want it recognised in civil law.
Anybody know?
Muslims?!!
‘Anybody know?
Muslims?!!’
Well anyone who’s bothered to find out really!
Sonia
I forgot to say – you owe Avi a huge apology for your rudeness.
You guys are still throwing blows into the darkness about the Sharia in the UK? Looks like some folks need a distraction from their daily mundane routines!
I only wish there was this much strident postulating, passionate debate, and outrage when we talk about real, concrete issues about abuse against women, poverty, sex trafficking, and a whole slew of issues that are actually going on today, as opposed to phantom “Muslims” who want to implement the Sharia in the UK (not saying there might be a nut or two who wants it).
It’s easier to chatter about shit that is no where near happening rather than grappling with what goes on every single day…
Dear Muslims!
Way to go, Muslims!
I have to say you never cease to amaze me. At some point I even thought there must be something wrong in your DNA.
What other explanation have you got for 1400 years and billions of people continuously hating freedom?
Stubbornly refusing books, art, creation, curiosity, the need for knowledge, the wish to reach the stars.
You simply want none of it!
And it is so unatural, so strange, it must, it must be something terribly wrong with you.
But it’s not the DNA. You’re not all Arabs, after all.
I think it’s that book.
And it has some other rather nasty side effects.
It makes you very unhappy, it keeps you in a state of perpetual sadness.
Take the bishop, for example.
If, instead of agreeing with Sharia Law, he would have said:
- ‘No way, Jose! No Sharia Law in Britain, ever!’ I think we all know what your reaction would have been.
Poor muslims, we’re oppressed again!
One would think that now, when he is willing to promote it for you, you would be happy, ready to start working on it, finally reaching your goal.
But that’s not you! Neah, neah.
Happy? You can’t be, it’s not in the Koran.
Instead you start circling from corner to corner, blaming each other, looking for examples from no other beautifully tailored country than Pakistan!
Gee
Well, I’ve got a surprise for you!
I want the Sharia Law for all you muslims! Yeyeeyyeye!
Initially it will only deal with small matters.
In the end you’re going to end up losing your heads in public executions.
After all, Islam IS a religion of peace.
^^ V. stupid post, #145. What a waste of typing time. Honestly.
Avi:
“In your world religion is usually bad and secular is usually viewed through biased rose tinted glasses.
You’ll usually jump in on the side of those that argue against religion.”
I haven’t read the 110 plus comments on this discussion, but this did catch my eye.
No one here– and I’ll defend Sunny here– has ever been “against religion.” Many here are “secularists” which means that religion should interfere as little as possible in the matters of governance, civil liberties, etc. It does not mean that one religion is privileged over the other.
A lot of religiously minded people mistake secularism for “anti-religion.” Stop doing that, please.
To Desi Italiana
Why are you calling my post stupid?
That’s all you can say? No other arguments?
Insults and that’s it?
Well, it only goes to prove my point.
I have yet to meet a muslim who can and will say the truth.
Go on! Get that Sharia Law!
You deserve it.
Infidel–
“I have yet to meet a muslim who can and will say the truth. Go on! Get that Sharia Law! You deserve it.”
“Why are you calling my post stupid?”
I’m going to use the word “stupid” again in reference to your post, because I am not a Muslim as you accuse me of being, but I am a Hindu.
“That’s all you can say? No other arguments?”
What argument is anyone supposed to have to counter your post? Your post #145 had no argument, duh!
If you want someone to give you an argument, give one first.
Avi at 64, talking to a man..”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.”
Quite apart from the obvious fact that that was an extremely drunk comment, it said an aweful lot about how stupid you are. Women in this country, have had reasonable respect for about a hundred years. You, and little shites like you can go and fuck off. Women, from any background are going to get respect here, whether you think so or not.
Which, apart from Avi not actually not making any sort of sense, I’m sure Avi is happy with it.
And then proceeding to suggest that it’s the Mormons what did it! Jesus, this is almost unbelieveable.
That is exactly not the fucking point. Avi, can you not take it on board that fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons are as daft as each other?
No you probably can’t, cause you are in fact a fundamentalist chap.
A guy, really, given to guy rules. Women don’t really count, do they?
Do they?
Or, for fucks sake, do they?
Not according to your pathetic testimony on here, You know what? they don’t. Why should just bow down to a complete utter wanker such as you, just ’cause you’ve got a dick?. You know what? I am fucking glad they don’t.
This has been the most pathetic arguement I’ve ever seen presented here.
Avi #130:
“Noone has yet to provide an argument about what is so wrong with what he said?”
See #74:
“1. Who are the “some Muslims”?
2. Which parts of the British legal system do they not relate to?”
Someone needs to answer both of those questions– Unless we know who exactly these pro Shariites that the good Dr. is referring to, and precisely which aspects of Brit system they don’t agree with, I’m afraid that 1) we’re all making a mountain out of a molehill, 2) looking for a good debate, 3) just blowing off steam or 4) all of the above.
Just a couple of minor points here. I have the greatest respect for both Sonia and Desi. I will not, willingly, see them treated as second class citizens on here. By anyone. There was a deleted post that you all probably saw, that was male sexism, and it was cheap and nasty.
So, if you think the preceeding post was OTT, anyone else playing the male card is likely to get a lot of trouble from me. Assuming the owners, like Sunny and Leon, let me.
Well, let’s see if any of that survives the editorial process. 50:50, I’d have thought.
Your wee boy Avi has a point. He has a dick. An idiot with a prick. What’s not to like about idiotic males?
As I was saying on my blog this morning, I think one set of laws for everyone works quite nicely. Dr Williams is just wasting everyone’s time.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Well, have you deleted DK’s stupid post, or was it all a figment of my imagination?
Letters from a Tory,
What fucking sense, from a Tory. I can hardly believe it. Sense where I wouldn’t expect it. Explain your mad allies, please.
Desi Italiana – Already answered your points but again:
1. Those Muslim Men and Women who use the “unofficial” Sharia courts. Even the Govts. favourite Muslim Cleric Zaki Badawi ran one. As numerous news media showed yesterday they exist up and down the country. What is being said is that should be brought under laws.
2. Again he said it quite clearly and it was repeated on Newsnight – check the webcast. He referred to the Civil Law mainly in cases in marriage and divorce.
Kulvinder – Yes they are different and that was his point that to include Muslims in society some aspects of the religous law which affect everyday life should be included in the UK Law. In some areas this happens already.
Douglas Clark – It isn’t even worth debating with someone who is behaving like a playground buly and the only thing you should do is put your toys back in your pram.
If you bothered to follow the actual thread then you would know that one argument made is that it should only be secular law. I replied to highlight that even in America where seperation of Religion and State in enacted by law it doesn’t happen. The example of the mormons was just that an example to show that religion and state are not seperated anywhere.
According to your poor understanding based upon your freindship with the two peopel you mention it is only they who can express opinions and claim to know what a religion says.
In your rather poor world of a bully you fail to grasp that Muslim men and Women go to “unofficial” Shariah courts to ensure that marriage or divorce is according to religous rules. I hazard a guess that Sonia herself was married by a Muslim Male Imam – which is hardly equal and did she complain then about equality. No because she is unhappy with some rules then those Muslims that accept those rules should be bound by civil law.
Well they aren’t because they go to “unofficial” Shariah courts. So what is beign stated simply is that some element of that should be brought within the law.
Quite simply there are many Muslim women who are quite westernised in their outlook who when it comes to these types of issues still follow Islamic Law. When they marry they are married by an Imam according to Islamic Rules. If sadly that marriage breaks down they will seek to have it finished according to Islamic Law. To them your argument that it is a Man’s Law doesn’t exist. To you they don’t exist.
What I am saying is that they should have those aspects of their lives protected by law.
This “complete utter wanker” as you described me rather than actually coming up with a coherant argument you ranted recognises that people have religous beliefs and they are using unofficial laws and there should be some recognition for those people and some protection.
The simple facts is that thousands of people use these courts every year and because in singular figures here people have said thye wouldrather use UK civil law – which they are entitled to do so – you are saying those thousands don’t exists or deserve rights and thus I am a “complete utter wanker” for wanting some recognition and protection for those people many of whom often don’t know what rights they have in the religous sense.
I can see how wanting to protect people rather than ignoring the issue or denying they are there makes me a “complete utter wanker”.
There are Muslim women and men who if thye cannot get a proper divorce under Islamic Law are unable to carry on with their lives. In the world of denial that you live you fail to want to protect those people, help them or let them carry on with their lives.
There was a case a few years ago in Scotland where a Muslim Lady had to try and get her amrriage annuled rather than a divorce so she so could carry on with her life. An annulment offered her nothing whereas a divorce would. But simply put what the courts could give her wasn’t acceptable. The lady in question had a fairly western outlook but in this case she wanted to follow Islamic Law and as she couldn’t had to get her marriage anulled so she could try and remarry and carry on with her life.
A “complete utter wanker” like me would like to see these people protected thus is willing to loo at allowing some aspects of Islamic Law to be viewed as being brought with in the law. So if that makes me a “complete utter wanker” then so be it. What does it make you who denys these people the right to follow their belief even if it grants less rights? What does that make you?
A caring soul like you says they don’t exist thus denying them any right or legitimacy.
The law and parliament are there to protect people and if it can help people of the Muslim faith in what are difficult issues why shouldn’t it?
On this Bulletin Board if you are not part of the select few then the abuse you can be subjected to if you disagree with the select few is horrendous. As I said, a few months ago one young lady who was part of the select few was subject to terrible abuse that left her in tears because of an unfair statement made about her religion. You lot need to look at yourselves and how you discuss things because if you are driving people to that state then what kind of humanbeings are you? It is simply a pretence that you care about people and want to discuss issues because frankly you are very abusive when people put views.
Is it acceptable in debates to call anyone a “complete utter wanker” and noone bats an eyelid mainly because the person can’t be bothered following the thread.
Avi “Stupid and now a complete utter wanker” Cohen
Avi Cohen,
Here, I’ve said it. I think you talk the utmost pish.
The playground bully is you. Not me. You are the person that thinks males dominate. You are the one that thinks that they are in fact justified in doing whatever they want. Pish, by the way.
Perhaps, in your pathetic case, justifying that on some sort of religious belief?
So, frankly, it is not worth debating with you, for you are the idiotic little religious idiot on here. You are the one that has never seen beyond his dick.
In broad terms, I actually hate religious idiots. Like you.
Douglas Clark,
Your central argument is taht you are friends with Sunny and Sonia. Therefore if anyone says anythign different to them then you central approach is to jump in and start hurling abuse without actually have much to say.
If you bothered to read what I said it is that both laws are being used and therefore the religous part should be brought under a degree of control. It is up to people to decide what they want to do, not you.
I don’t think males dominate and I don’t think they should.
But unlike you I recognise that people have religous beliefs and we should try and protect them where possible so they can quietly get on with their lives. You approach is its your way or no way.
If Males dominate then why is it that so many women go to religous courts? That shows your argument for the lame argument it is.
You are the one denying women and men who hold religous belief a right.
If I am the bully then am I the one who is being abusive by hurling profanities?
158 and Avi Cohen, whom I think I am entitled to assume is not a Jew?
Look, I doubt there would be anyone in the UK that was actually against any religious group trying to reconcile families. That is not to say that, when push comes to shove, the state not ought to be the arbitrator. That, you really, really do not get, do you?
You say this: “A “complete utter wanker” like me would like to see these people protected thus is willing to loo at allowing some aspects of Islamic Law to be viewed as being brought with in the law. So if that makes me a “complete utter wanker” then so be it. What does it make you who denys these people the right to follow their belief even if it grants less rights? What does that make you?”
Well, yes. You do make yourself out to be a complete and utter wanker. You seem to me at least, to be denying 50% of your constituency. But I expect you knew that?
No to any aspect of Sharia in the UK legal system. It is medievalism, it is ill-liberal, it is mysogynistic and anti women.
No, No and thrice no.
We are not going to enact a two tier or parrallel legal system that effectively makes women who use the shariah version second class citizens in their own country!
Rowen Williams should ashamed for his words, kow-towing to a hard right wing minority within a minority of a cultural group within the UK.
I’ll stand corrected. If either Sonia or Desi disagree with me, though it would hurt me deeply, I would then agree with Avi Cohen, that men are indeed better than women. For me, this has been the most pathetic – in an Avi Cohen sense – arguement I have ever seen.
“Rowen Williams should ashamed for his words, kow-towing to a hard right wing minority within a minority of a cultural group within the UK.”
Perhaps.
Or perhaps he is joining forces with them against the (one hopes inexorable) forces of secularism and atheism.
What do they have in common?
Faith schools – check.
Anti-gay – check.
Religious hatred laws – check.
Meanwhile the government’s reaction (principled though it *sounds*) rings a little hollow in the week we discover extra benefits will be paid to the polygamous!
Perhaps this is the religious equivalent of idiot lefties joining forces with Islamists!!
cjcjc,
It is not, perhaps. It is, probably. I am quite angry that the majority community, which is at the very least agnostic, is not recognised by the state. Oor Gordon can claim being the son of a Scotch Minister as a fucking virtue, when it is obviously not. It is really time we woke up as a society. Don’t hold your breath.
Douglas Clark – I still don’t think you get it and are going round like a headless chicken.
The State can be the ultimate arbitrator, I’ve already said that. But for those with a religous conviction they want to try and follow their religous belief as well. So the state is being asked to allow leeway to see if the parties can agree the dispute through their religous laws.
If they can’t they can refer back to the state. It really is as simple as that. That is all that is being requested.
You simply don’t get the fact that women want to be able to choose. You are behaving like a macho male in that you know what is best – so its Super Doug to the rescue Tatetatah!
You are using emmotial blackmail to make your point and inferring words that I have never said. I don’t say women are inferior. I am the one speaking up for giving all the rights they want. You are denying them rights because you think you know best.
As I said the reality is that these unofficial religous courts are used by women and men who believe that their religion guides them in all aspecvts of life. Thus they want to be able to use their religous law to settle issues.
I have always said that people should have the freedom to refer to either, it should be their choice. You have basically now resorted to untruths to say that I am saying women are not equal to men. I haven’t said that ever. I said men and women of each religion should have the option of using their religous beliefs to settle arguemnts. Why on earth can’t you understand that.
You may believe that the religous law is unequal but they clearly don’t which is why these courts exist unoffcially. So where is the harm if the Govt says that where both parties agree we will refer the case to the religous court and if they can’t agree it comes back to the normal court.
Where exactly is the harm in people having that choice?
Also please kindly stop painting a false picture of what I said and read what I said. I simply explained the laws to my understanding as have other people and in your increasingly abusive way you are implying untruths about what I said. I didn’t support it either way.
I do support men and women having a choice to follow their belief in what is a difficult time.
I think the whole thing about triple talaq is a fallacy. A man is not allowed to say it three times and then bugger off…and that is the common consensus at the moment…I have seen the links above but have read information myself that conflicts with this argument. Also a woman is allowed a khul even if she gives a ‘lame’ excuse of not liking her husband anymore. Whether this is practised or not is another question. So for certain ulema to make women suffer needlessly in a loveless/violent marriage is contrary to the contract of marriage…end of!!!
Sonia, I can understand that you are mad at what is going on, but I’ve met men and women who have been divorced islamically and both had to go through certain procedures, one was not “easier” than the other. I think the problems lie in
a) who are enforcers of shariah in Britain
b) comparing britiain to saudi arabia when it comes to shariah enforcement and the rights of women and men.
c)problems within muslim communities in britain anyway that would need to be sorted out before any type of shariah system was legally enforced. For a politically naive community to want this, it needs to sort out it’s own house first before telling the world of the virtues of shariah.
Shariah is already being practised in civil cases, as is hindu/sikh/jewish law, but I do have a problem with an abuse of this especially when it comes to talaq/khul cases.
Sofia – Shariah is already being practised in civil cases, as is hindu/sikh/jewish law, but I do have a problem with an abuse of this especially when it comes to talaq/khul cases.
Thank you. Thank you Thank you.
Which is what I am saying and I am saying that the law needs to look at some kind of control and rtecognition to make people’s lives easier.
Douglas Clark – Read what she said and then tell me that men and women don’t use religous courts in the UK.
So why can’t the law:
1. Provide regulation and protection to them
2. Give them that freedom of choice?
TCH – so i got married by nikkah..does that make me a second class citizen? I also choose to eat halaal meat..does that make me a second class citizen?
All law is open to abuse…it is up to us all to take ownership…including shariah..when we leave it up to the so called religious we absolve ourselves of any responsibility.
If the ABC is so concerned about social cohesion and the “inevitability” of the introduction of formal religious law into certain enclaves of society, why has he not stood up and backed the African Anglican Churchs’ desire to refuse the legitimisation of gay priests? As the ABC, it’s obvious that he does not believe gay priests are good for society and, in that the African Church is bound to, inevitably, turf out the injuction. Go on, you know you want to, Dr Williams. Stop passing the buck to Islamic law to strenghten your hand.
TCH – so i got married by nikkah..does that make me a second class citizen? I also choose to eat halaal meat..does that make me a second class citizen?
No, but if you have daughters and they only inherit half of your property by edict of Sharia law, then that makes *them* second class citizens.
Sid – “No, but if you have daughters and they only inherit half of your property by edict of Sharia law, then that makes *them* second class citizens.”
Sid if the woman can spend her inheritance as she choose and the man is told how to spend then does that make him a 2nd class citizen?
It is a checks and balances system.
Zaheer, if the woman and man are siblings, they inherit 25% and 75% of thrir father’s estate by law. Even if the woman is free to spend her share, how do you see the parity in their inheritance based on this “freedom to spend” doctrine?
“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?”
This already happens in India..shah bano…
Sid..does equal mean the same?
Sofia, yes, one equals one in most human value systems.
Thank you Sofia for #168.
I am quite pissed off with Sonia. She was told this in a previous discussion. She did not come back to counter.
So she repeats it precisely as she did before.
Makes a mockery of the debate – if no one is going to listen to each other, and we can just carry on as if we never touched on the subject before. Or it suggests she’s not engaging with the debate, but wants to just put it out there.
I don’t know anymore.
Douglas,
Go take some cocoa, I never seen you so personally riled. As for the sexist comment, can you tell us what it is and who made it?
Refresh, I think you have failed to come up with one single reason why Sharia should be adopted formally in this country. Don’t blame this failure on Sonia.
Sid, I don’t think I’ve failed at all – so there is nothing to blame Sonia for on that.
Sharia is here as far as I can tell. There are Rabbinical courts too. I don’t see the fuss.
Your not going to them for advice, nor is Sonia. So what it the fuss.
Sonia has her own thoughts and experiences which again should be respected. If she wants to rail against Shariah that is up to her…and actually i think it is quite healthy to do so and not silently let thoughts fester. I sometimes would like to yell and scream at the maulvis and imams in this country for being a bunch of insensitive tw*ts but can you imagine someone questioning an imam????? This is the sorry state of our communities. We have a shit load of social problems that are being brushed under the carpet…and i don’t blame my religion for it..what i do blame is the culture of silence and non questioning for fear of blaspheming…we encourage ppl to read about islam and fail to do it ourselves…we encourage non muslims to understand us when we don’t even understand ourselves…this is the sad reality…
You’re the one who is pissed off and generating the fuss Refresh.
I love seeing the Ummah in disarray.
I could quite happily go on reading this thread and laughing at you all.
But, having said that, there is a more important issue here: all the Muslims on this thread (Desi, Avi cohen, sofia, Refresh etc) who are pining for ‘some aspects of Shariah to be introduced into the British Legal system’, are you not missing the overriding point of Shariah and Islam?
Islam and Shariah is an all or nothing system; each law and piece of jurisprudence is linked to the next.
So you either adopt it in totality, or not at all.
Therefore, why are you not pining for stoning, lashings, amputations etc?
If you disagree with these aspects, then are you not simply ‘pick and choose Muslims’.
‘You’re the one who is pissed off and generating the fuss Refresh.’
Perhaps.
George..get a life
sofia
and i don’t blame my religion for it..
That’s your problem; you are blind to the obvious flaws in Islam. Even sid can see the flaws.
what i do blame is the culture of silence and non questioning for fear of blaspheming
Islam is quite clear in this respect: you should not question the word of Allah. So what do you expect? Of course you’re going to get silence and non-questioning.
…we encourage ppl to read about islam and fail to do it ourselves…
You have also failed to read about it properly. If you had you would, like Sid and sonia, would be staunchly against any aspect of shariah being introduced into this country.
George is Muzumdar. The poor man suffers from bipolar affected syndrome, so please humour him.
Sofia, yes, one equals one in most human value systems.
cool..i’ll tell that to my hubby one day when i get 6 months off when i have a kid, and he gets 2 weeks…
as for equal being the same..we’re not talking maths here…and sid…technically equality is not about treating ppl the same…which is why we are having discussion about shariah or any minority rights at all..
for example..look at positive action drives in companies..this is targetting minorities..not white ppl…therefore could be seen as discriminatory..in this case to treat a black person the same as a white person you give them exactly the same chance…therefore no need for positive action…
Sharia is here as far as I can tell. There are Rabbinical courts too. I don’t see the fuss.
Yes, in a limited form for arbitrating some civil laws like divorce and marriage, as far as I can tell. Even that is way too much.
Any idea why the ABC didn’t use the Shin Beth as an example of social cohesion. As far as I can tell, orthodox jews were a socially cohesive group to begin with. Muslim migrants communities in the UK are socially, theocratically diverse and heterogenous.
Douglas, I agree with you, thank you for making some sense.
Frankly Avi Cohen hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. It’s all been discussed before, religion and law when they mix we see what’s happened and what happens – repressive authoritarian interpretations hold sway. Anyway Sunny already has addressed all these points sensibly. I don’t think we really need to re-iterate all the discussions about some people wanting the Khilafah and their idealisms about how they will implement God’s law in the way it was meant to be implemented, how they of course would avoid centuries of misapplication gone before.
Anyhow some people are trying to make this about different groups having the option to have different laws, and really of course the core problem is that, he – and many others – are also not seeming to register the problem within the ‘group’ and anyway that it is not a real ‘group’, and that in many cases, there is serious coercion within the “group” that comes from familial enforcement of religion, and community enforcement In my opinion, talking about implementing Shariah really makes this very dangerous for individuals. This is my core concern.
Everyone knows about the lack of agreement between Muslims about how Shariah should be applied, and whether we should be subject to it, and the significant pressures the younger generation face. This is like giving religious community leaders a legal stick to beat their younger generation with! So the fact that there is a real problem of ‘intra-group’ pressure to conform religiously – which comes from elders who are seen as ‘authority’ -is very problematic, and is really the crux of this matter.
Anyhow, I can’t be bothered with these idiots anymore. They can get on their high horse as much as they like, they are missing the point. They clearly haven’t thought much about the fact that there are loads of people who haven’t been able to freely choose their religion at all. ( and many who have actually rejected that religion or are seriously questioning it) but because of familial and community ties are likely to be drawn in to this kind of parallel legal process. And I don’t think I need to point out that rejecting your family and community’s religion is a very big deal, many view ‘apostasy’ ( what a term) as the biggest sin ever, and a huge dishonour on a family if anyone finds out.
So the real issue – for me Shariah aside -is that if anything, this brings to light the Real issues individuals face in terms of religious pressure and coercion. Some people are trying really hard to loosen the knots and gain some freedom, but some idiots come along and want to tighten the noose. How wonderful! Make it even harder to escape from the grasp of the Community Leaders.
And don’t misquote me Avi Cohen – “Sonia is saying “No Choice”, ..ha! effectively you’re saying there should be only Choice for people of religion, if the suggestion was any individual choose what law applies to them, why that’s a completely different debate and discussion. ( I personally agree with Dave S)
as Sonia i should be allowed to choose what laws apply to me, why should it be only as a Muslim? You have not addressed that point at all – you have some mythical idea about “Muslims” and what “they” want. Well here’s a news flash buddy, Muslims are first and foremost human individuals and I am talking about choices on an individual level. And if you are going to offer Choice to one group, well you had better work out why you cannot offer a similar choice to other Groups. So don’t let’s conflate what’s actually being talked about here.
cool..i’ll tell that to my hubby one day when i get 6 months off when i have a kid, and he gets 2 weeks…
Yeah but the difference is paternity and maternity laws are civil laws which are not edicts given to us from God. It also varies from country to country and most important of all, they are changeable by legislature. Sweden is pushing for 6 months paternity for dad and 12 montsh for mums. In my last job I got 2 months in the UK and in my present role, I’m lucky to get 1 week. But at least we can change them. There is no room for change in Sharia.
Refresh,
You really do not get it, do you? There is Muslim orthodoxy, and there is something else. Frankly, I am quite angry at the Muslim orthodoxy that Mr Avi Cohen spouts. Frankly, I think it is shite, frankly I think it denies half of your so called communicants any sort of worthwhile religion whatsoever. If you are an honest person, you’ll recognise them as women.
Refresh. I always thought of you as honest. Don’t let me down.
104 – thank you sid, and sofia, thanks for what you say in 181. as you say , there is a big issue in not being able to speak up.
of course it seems if you do, even on the internet, say things in a STRONG and im not backing down way, people just turn around and try and socially blackmail you, oh you’re rude oh you’re this. Deal with it people, if you want to be upset, well dont come to discussion boards discussing very controversial issues. I am not here to be your friend. So dont take it personally one way or the other. Feminists and people standing up for their rights have not got where they are through simpering and giggling. this is beyond personal attacks – there are much bigger, and more important wider social issues at stake here. It might be time wasting for some of you, but it is solid reality for many of us.
you see what happens when i stay away from you picklers for a day or two?
anyway, on reflection, having heard what the archbishop had to say, as well as what david blunkett and the bish of southwark and the registrar of the london beth din (the jewish religious court) had to say on the “today” programme this morning, i am drawn to a number of conclusions:
1. virtually all the discussion about this appears to be ignorant of precisely what the legal position of alternate dispute resolution and arbitration actually is – this includes journalists who ought to know better and religious figures (including RW) who ought to know better. glibly asserting that it is merely a description of “multiple identities” is to use weasel words to try avoid opening a can of worms – and if you’ve ever seen a weasel with worms opening a can, well…
2. having heard some of the speech, i’m not exactly suprised how it is being interpreted, most of it being verbose to a point and almost entirely impenetrable – remember that papal speech that had everyone up in arms, but almost nobody had actually *read* and understood?
3. as usual, this is a cue for all the usual suspects, both pro- and anti-sharia, to reiterate their normal positions.
perhaps i ought to clarify precisely how the jewish courts work and how they differ from sharia courts:
the cross-communal orthodox batei din are pretty much one per large city. there’s one in london, one in manchester and i think one in leeds, plus one nationally for the sephardic community. there are also numerous smaller batei din that operate in the ultra-orthodox sector, which are a lot more involved in issuing guidance, as well as national batei din that operate in the non-orthodox denominations, although their communities are correspondingly less likely to have recourse to them for anything other than marriage, divorce and conversion. registration of marriages is coordinated centrally in london and they administer the records. each BD has a kashrut authority dealing with kosher slaughter and may deal with other local issues like the NW london eruv. the mainstream orthodox have reciprocal arrangements and will almost always respect each other’s rulings. the mainstream orthodox will also often adhere to standards imposed in more “right-wing” courts. naturally, orthodox BD do not recognise the authority or validity of non-orthodox BD. however, the system as a whole is highly centralised and there is little variance within the actual denomination. moreover, there is a high level of international consistency resulting from the historical development of judaism internationally over several thousand years – even around 1000CE it was common for halakhic questions from spain or france to be asked of the great authorities in iraq.
this, for a start, is very different from the sharia courts, which i understand are highly decentralised and also highly fragmented and stratified along root community and mosque lines, e.g. maududi-influenced pakistani communities in bradford as opposed to sufi-influenced turkish communities in north london. similarly, it appears that almost anyone with a following can start issuing decisions and opinions (fatwa) which may or may not agree with others, either in the UK or abroad. the effect of this is that, more or less, decisions are decided by influence, from the well-respected court of the muslim college of the much-lamented zaki badawi to, well, the likes of abu hamza and omar bakri. this makes for a poor level of quality control compared to what would be required by english civil law and far less consistency than what is current practice in jewish law by an order of magnitude. i’m not criticising quality as an inherent thing in sharia, i just don’t think it’s organised enough to warrant *general* trust as yet.
as the registrar of the london BD pointed out this morning (and i should declare at this point i have no particular jones for these guys, who i have had several dealings with, some pleasant and straightforward, others less so) having recourse to a BD for a ruling is *no different* from agreeing to take your dispute to a shipping “court”, an insurance “court”, ACAs, professional mediators, or whoever *both parties* agree on. thus, when applied to the BD to authorise my marriage under jewish law, i was convinced (although this was not forced) to sign an agreement that, in the event of a divorce, i would apply to the BD in order that they could ensure that my marriage was correctly dissolved under jewish law, leaving both parties free to marry again, which is the salient point. this has been necessary precisely because the BD has no *formal* coercive power (although plenty of the informal sort), which has in the past led to people obtaining a civil divorce without a jewish one, which leaves the *wife* vulnerable to the husband’s recalcitrance. nowadays, an adjustment has been recently obtained to civil *procedure* (although i am not sure if it’s enshrined in statute) whereby the judge will refuse to grant decree absolute (although not decree nisi) unless the BD confirms that wife has been “freed” by the correct delivery of her religious bill of divorce. this closes a loophole in the law which was being exploited by some complete bastards to extort money from their wives whilst also making the BD look ineffectual.
in *this* case there is no reason that the provision for divorce (although nothing else) could not be extended to muslims (or anyone) if it were required, although in *no sense* should it be construed as giving you the “option” as to whether to obey the civil law or not. the problem actually arises when you are forced to go to a court where you won’t get a fair trial and this cannot be permitted. jews cannot be compelled to attend a BD, although they cannot then turn round and demand that the BD sanction their actions, although it doesn’t stop people trying it from time to time. if you want your divorce or conversion to be recognised by an authority, you must voluntarily submit to that authority, there’s no other way round it, just as if you want to continue to be a member of the professional body that insurers belong to, you have to follow its procedures. you are of course free not to and to submit your dispute to the civil courts, but you may be jeopardising your future as an insurer. however, i believe certain non-civil bodies are recognised by some form of charter; perhaps the answer would be for sharia courts to get organised the way BD are and enforce a common standard of quality control; unfortunately the current situation does not warrant it.
finally, i should point out that jews are subject to a religious law known as “dina de’malkhuta dina”, which translates as “the law of the land is the law”, in other words, we have to obey the law of the land. to my knowledge, there is a precise sharia equivalent of this provision, although i forget what it’s called. i am disappointed that nobody’s brought it up, although not entirely surprised.
b’shalom
bananabrain
btw, can you all stop slagging each other off, because this is an important discussion!
btw: sid, the beth din is *not* the same as the shin bet!!!
I had a whole piece written about this but as usual PP beat me to it – don’t any of you have day jobs?
Sonia @20 and 91 and Sunny@37: worth reading Avi @21 as there’s some slippage in your use of ’shariah’. It is not a codified law.
Avi@21 and 31@, and Kulvinder@84: indeed the Archbishop did do some research and then gave a whole lecture about what he learned. The furore is unhelpfully focusing almost exclusively on his radio interview only. Full speech here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf
Sunny@37: we don’t have humane interpretations of our own laws in Britain or ‘the West’ either as you well know (not just a problem in ‘the Muslim majority countries’).
As well, if a sexist Imam does decree something that one doesn’t agree with perhaps we could think about recognizing a right of appeal, as we have in some parts of English law, like when a racist judge decrees something that one doesn’t agree with. The fact that one has ’signed up to this measure’ doesn’t mean one automatically has to accept all judgments that come out of it.
Marvin@60: ‘beheadings, stonings or amputations’ are not at all beside the point; the reactions by key commentators, I would say, are largely a result of the perception that all shariah = beheadings, stonings or amputations.
Kulvinder@80: I think one issue might be that Islamic marriages aren’t recognized in law. It’s not just about the arbitration point.
Sunny@106 and Sonia generally: the fact that ‘choice’ is complicated, constrained and sometimes leads to a woman harming herself does not mean that choice should not at all be extended/an entitlement nevertheless. Personally, I think it depends on the issue and the degree of harm (e.g. prostitution vs FGM vs hijab). Anything less is to treat a woman as if she has no agency whatsoever.
Have to admit, I’ve stopped reading after post 125 so apologies if someone’s already addressed or preempted these points with superior evidence and wit.
You do understand that one of the aspects of Shariah is to obey the laws of another country, yes?
192 – well said Douglas! ( and just look at the kind of treatment anyone who challenges orthodoxy gets)
bananabrain ” it appears that almost anyone with a following can start issuing decisions and opinions (fatwa) which may or may not agree with others, either in the UK or abroad. the effect of this is that, more or less, decisions are decided by influence, from the well-respected court of the muslim college of the much-lamented zaki badawi to, well, the likes of abu hamza and omar bakri. this makes for a poor level of quality control compared to what would be required by english civil law and far less consistency than what is current practice in jewish law ”
Totally agree with you on that one
Refresh – to answer your question in 180 – very simply : a couple get married, one is a more pious observant Muslim than the other. ( we both know there are many shades of ‘muslimness’) both come from muslim families. they want a divorce at some stage. man wants to do it via sharia court, woman doesn’t. they are already pissed off with each other, and he wants one thing, she wants another. She will want custody of the teenaged children too, and thinks she has a better chance under civil law.
perhaps you can see where the myriad problems might come in?
bb- sorry about my mixing of the beth din with shin bet.
Following on the lines of the Jewish BD, I think if Sharia is limited to ruling on divorce and marriage here in the UK, its a compromise I, as a muslim, would be willing to accept.
But your point:
this makes for a poor level of quality control compared to what would be required by english civil law and far less consistency than what is current practice in jewish law by an order of magnitude. i’m not criticising quality as an inherent thing in sharia, i just don’t think it’s organised enough to warrant *general* trust as yet.
is absolutely spot on, and is one that people who are advocating for sharia on this thread and beyond have been simply unable to address.
You are right, I am indescribably angry at the shit that passes for debate here. It is a complete crock of shit to try to argue on a site like this that women are not men’s equals. In fact, anyone that does is a complete utter idiot.
I don’t know where that places your chum Avi Cohen, nor perhaps you good self.
‘Tis you, my friend that needs the cocoa, here. You, sir, seem to be the one that sees the fairer sex as less that equal. Your sort, lost that war an aweful long time ago.
Again i think we all need to calm down…why can’t we all respect that we may not agree?
What is the point of talking on pp when we end up talking like tabloid journos
word.
Sonia – you appear to have trouble reading. I said that people should be free to choose which law they want to follow when it comes to divorce. That gives everyone rights.
Your way denies people the religous choice as you want it all done through current civi law.
Sonia if you as a Muslim want to go to a normal court then I am saying that you should be allowed to but equally if anyone wants to use a religous court they shoudl be allowed to. That is choice for all. Your saying they should always use the civil court. That is denying a choice.
I can’t see where the problem is in allowing both. As long as noone is forced then they shoudl have the right. Personally I think all parties should have civil marriages to protect rights but if they want to use another method what is wrong with that?
Douglas is morally blackmailing the argument by talking about equal rights. It is a choice people can make.
Thanks for the link Zohra. and yes, ’sharia’ is not codified – absolutely, and that is usually precisely the problem. You are usually at the mercy of the interpreation of a Qadi.
Perhaps my feeling is that these Qadis would be biased against women – of course i could be wrong, but perhaps someone can give me some reason why I should trust Qadis here more than anywhere else.
Douglas is morally blackmailing the argument by talking about equal rights. It is a choice people can make.
If a woman has right to only half of her brothers’ share of their fathers’ inheritance a choice she can make?
Sonia – In your example then the civil court has to be the choice simply because both parties disagree.
The law also needs to say that even if both parties go down the religous route and say one is unhappy then they can go back to the civil court.
I agree it is complex but that is what the civil court is there for to see if an agreement can be reached, if it can’t then it steps in.
I think you’ll find Muslim women are far more devout and most will use the civil court but refer back to religous court as they already do.
Many Muslim women who divorce go through both processes so why not give them both choices mlore easily with better protection.
At least please accept that this already goes on so lets provide the protection. Thats all I am saying.
The quite frankly disgraceful inability of ‘Respect’ to at least conclude there was an arguement to be had, viz a viz women that were Muslim, says it all. I’d be interested in how ‘Respect’ talks himself out of that.
No doubt he will quote religious law. No doubt we will quote, better, secular law back at him.
Religious law should have no place in a secular system. Full stop. That’s why Canon Law has no effect any more, and the UK even has a bloody established religion!
This is a very good link about the Imrana controversy – which is a good case study i feel – I would urge any of you who actually have a serious interest, about the myriad problems bound up in sharia interpretation and implementation to read this: Imrana and the Shariah Controversy
Apologies, link above isn’t working:
Imrana and the Sharia Controversy
Good point Sonia. Kind of highlights the groundwork that needs to be put into place before the community can even decide on how to implement a working Sharia system. Read the MCB’s take on the issue: http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4379/34/
This sums most of it up.
wow, that’s really quite a sensible article from MPACUK. Amazing.
Douglas
“Refresh,
You really do not get it, do you?”
This is really peculiar. Each side is saying exactly that. That the other doesn’t get it.
I don’t mind getting into debates if we can actually progress anything.
There are a lot of good points being made by both sides.
In a nutshell – Sonia clarifies her position in the last post. That given the choice, there are muslims who will not want to participate in Sharia arbitration. And she gives her strongly held reasons – which come down to a matter of compulsion.
Which raises the question, the changes being considered (bearing in mind no one has yet suggested what they are – which is not helping) or likely to be proposed are more than likely to be superficial. What else could they be?
Now given muslims (in the vast majority of cases) marry under the aegis of their religion. It follows then that divorce proceedings are also going to follow religious guidelines. That has always been the case.
What isn’t right under those circumstances is for the guidance to be used to favour one side over the other.
The question of compulsion is a serious matter, and it needs to be addressed. How do you address it? It will not be through abuse and generalisations. Its going to be through sheer hard graft and for muslims to use their own reading of their faith and precedent presented as evidence.
Compulsion in families is a dreadful thing – its a form of disorder and leads to abuse.
If we really want an honest debate then surely it is trying to understand the rationale behind the rules and then pointing out the hypocrisy of the practical.
Thank you for the link Random Guy. Yes there would be plenty of groundwork to do, definitely.
Good point Sid.
Avi Cohen,
Beyond a non binding, intervention, by your religious folk, do you think either psrty should hsve recourse to civil law? Of course you don’t. You are an idiotic religionist. Which is where I part company from you.
Sid
Your #200
‘But your point:
this makes for a poor level of quality control compared to what would be required by english civil law and far less consistency than what is current practice in jewish law by an order of magnitude. i’m not criticising quality as an inherent thing in sharia, i just don’t think it’s organised enough to warrant *general* trust as yet.
You’ve probably given the most sensible reason, so far, for accomodating sharia in the civil code. Quality control.
Nope,
Refresh, you might want to say that it all follows from your post 214. But it clearly does not.
Well that was banabrain’s comment on the divergence of where Beth Din with the parlous state of sharia implementation.
As a secularist, I’m against religious law operating in the UK. But if religious people want to live by sacred law, I think it should be limited to marriage and divorce laws, as the BD has pretty much perfected, and from whom Mulsim jurisprudents have much to learn. And that even before they manage to incorporate a balance on parity for the sexes.
Refresh,
Am I right or am I wrong in thinking that women are treated differently under Muslim divorce laws. Y’know compared to men? That should be easy enough for you.
Douglas
‘‘Tis you, my friend that needs the cocoa, here.’
I’m not really a cocoa sort of guy.
‘You, sir, seem to be the one that sees the fairer sex as less that equal.’
Most unfair. Never ever ever has anyone levelled that at me before. I mean ever.
I shall put that down to the distortions of the media we are using to communicate and high passion.
In any case, I am glad to see we’ve come out of the phoney-war and we are beginning to deal with issues that are genuine and real.
I wager, here and now, that by the end of this debate you will see there is not a lot between the vast majority of proponents in this fray.
Douglas
‘Refresh, you might want to say that it all follows from your post 214. But it clearly does not.’
Your comments on my 214? It would help move things on.
Sid, yes you’re right. Credit to Bananabrain.
I think your response was
‘is absolutely spot on, and is one that people who are advocating for sharia on this thread and beyond have been simply unable to address.’
It should be addressed, which might go some way to dealing some of the ignorance (including mine).
I wager, here and now, that by the end of this debate you will see there is not a lot between the vast majority of proponents in this fray.
I wager here and now, that as more and more muslims understand the underlying framework that the sharia creates, it will be rejected as unworkable, narrow, unfair, none-secular, undemocratic and elitist. As it already has been by most muslim-majority countries including the ones which pay lipservice to it for purely political reasons.
Refresh
You choose to say:
I would hazard that if that is to be the case, you will be the one that has to climb down. Which, frankly, I would welcome. I genuinely do not know how a person like you can pretend to be against women. Even as a joke. Or as a daft religious conviction.
To be honest Douglas, I didn’t know there was anything to climb down from. You might have to spell it out.
Refresh,
I actually quite like you. So, hopefully this will not seem as personal as it does to me, even though you are totally wrong
I think Refresh has already accepted sharia is incompatible with secular countries and muslims in the uk. He just wants to be Celine Dion singing a torch song to sharia, while Abu Hamza and the Archbishop of Canterbury cuddle up on the upper deck.
Come now Sid, you’ve already accepted it for family arbitration!
And I quote:
‘Following on the lines of the Jewish BD, I think if Sharia is limited to ruling on divorce and marriage here in the UK, its a compromise I, as a muslim, would be willing to accept.’
And how much are you willing to relinquish?
Douglas – can you actually read? I seriously doubt it. I have said multiple times that people have a right to go to civil courts including Muslims. So again your continuing lies show you up for what you are.
DAVID FREI, REGISTRAR OF THE LONDON BETH DIN
“I do believe that under the present legal system so far as arbitration is concerned there is nothing preventing Muslims today resolving their civil disputes by consent under Sharia law.
“The arbitration acts provide that people can resolve their disputes in this country under arbitration and they can choose which system to use as well.”
It is already here how hard is that to comprehend in your tiny world? All I am saying is bring it under control in law and let people have the choice but with the safeguard coming from the state.
Try reading what is said before commenting. I have never said that Muslim women shouldn’t use civil courts
Douglas
I quite like you too. Of course its not personal. I prefer an open-minded and a rational argument.
Any thoughts to my #214.
Sid,
‘And how much are you willing to relinquish?’
What do you mean? Enigmatic one-liners don’t help me to understand the point you are making.
I thought the sentence is quite clear. How much of the full blown formal sharia implementation are you willing to forego?
The following link is interesting – this lady has done a good job of updating us on a Channel 4 Documentary we should have all watched:
Divorce Sharia style
it suggests to me that currently, if one goes to this Shariah council, their ‘divorce’ applies in the islamic sense only – i.e. to dissolve the nikah – but if you actually happen to have had a civil marriage as well – then the divorce wouldn’t apply to your civil marriage.
my question would then be – is this what Rowan is talking about? Going to a sharia ‘court’ which nullifies a ‘marrigage’ that was not anyway legalized/recognised in civil law? (i.e. if you had only an Islamic marriage – a Nikah – and not – an additional civil marriage) Or is he talking about going to a shariah court for a divorce – which would then nullify your civil marriage if you had one as well? There’s clearly a big difference.
I’d assumed unless one was being polygamous, most people had both a religious (nikah) and a civil ceremony.
224 – Brilliantly put Sid. as some one who grew up in
muslim majority countries and the middle east, i definitely agree with you on this one
Fascinating discussion…I can see that Sonia is still raging at Shari’ah and Women.
Sid:
Funny thing, we discussed the ‘unequal’ distribution of inheritance on a previous thread, and how it has appeared here again. The issue is more complex when it invloves how much the State should interfere in the passing down of one’s wealth, however, at least with Shariah laying down fixed proportions everyone is guaranteed to some sizable sums, unlike dear Nigella here http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_7217000/7217398.stm
Saqib, do you see a law which states that Nigella should be forced to pass on only half the due to her daughters she passes to her sons, even if she wants otherwise? If not, you’re not really comparing apples with apples are you?
Douglas – as you have difficulty reading what I said in 207 I said:
“In your example then the civil court has to be the choice simply because both parties disagree.
The law also needs to say that even if both parties go down the religous route and say one is unhappy then they can go back to the civil court.
I agree it is complex but that is what the civil court is there for to see if an agreement can be reached, if it can’t then it steps in.”
In 216 you said:
“Beyond a non binding, intervention, by your religious folk, do you think either psrty should hsve recourse to civil law? Of course you don’t.”
So you are just peddling untruths after I have said that the civil law is available to all.
Such distortions – gross distortions to balckmail people to your point of view is an absolute disgrace.
Sid:
‘I wager here and now, that as more and more muslims understand the underlying framework that the sharia creates, it will be rejected as unworkable, narrow, unfair, none-secular, undemocratic and elitist. As it already has been by most muslim-majority countries including the ones which pay lipservice to it for purely political reasons.’
Unfortunately Sid, despite all my sins, I can’t match your wager, for gambling is against the shariah.
I think you will find however that actually the converse is true, as the growth in awareness and understanding of Islam increases the demand for shariah. This is most true with regards to finance, and increasingly of establishing Islamic principles of social/economic justice.
The example of Majority Muslim states is not necessarily indicative of a wholesale rejection by society of shariah, rather the political decisions of narrow secular, autocratic regimes. In fact if there was greater democracy, you would see greater vibrancy amongst the people to seek shariah compliant solutions.
I don’t understand your point on shariah being elitist, please elaborate?
Saqib, you’re deluding yourself. Most muslim-majority states are run by strong-arm regimes of authocratic military despots married to clerical religionsists, thereby giving autocracy a moral privelege.
Most people in these muslim-majorty states want out of this arrangement and would like full blown democracy. Especially women, if the modern histories of Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc are to be believed.
I don’t understand your point on shariah being elitist, please elaborate?
It gives paramount religious significance to Islam at the cost of other religions and pluralism in general. This also hands a sop to religious supremacism which is most Muslims have grown up to believe is quite normal.
Sonia – do you think then that legislation should be brought in to ban unofficial shariah courts?
Would this bring with it the fact that a Muslim woman won’t have an islamic divorce so cannot remarry.
Also would you then ban Muslim weddings and have civil weddings only instead?
Should Halal meat be allowed as that is also part of Shariah?
What about Islamic Burial which is different to normal burial in a coffin?
Should the law be entirely civil law only?
To what extent should Islam play a role in people’s lives?
Sid:
“I wager here and now, that as more and more muslims understand the underlying framework that the sharia creates, it will be rejected as unworkable, narrow, unfair, none-secular, undemocratic and elitist. As it already has been by most muslim-majority countries including the ones which pay lipservice to it for purely political reasons”
That is absolutely spot on.
In general then: one of the worst things that can happen to British Muslims would be the official adoption of ‘voluntary’ (Aye right, pull the other one) Sharia in the UK. It will be incredibly divisive and will be exploited by the most oppressive, mysoginistic and reactionary elements within the Muslim community.
It will reinforce the impression that many non-muslims have that British Muslims view themselves as above and beyond the rest of society. Now those supremacists in the muslim communities are a minority of a minority but they tend to be able to tar the majority of the whole community with the same brush and, lets be honest, a good proportion of non-muslims are willing to believe it for a whole basket of reasons.
And also proponents of Sharia will never be able to convince a majority of fellow Brits that it isn’t a coercive patriarchical club that will force british citizens down a legal route that treats them with less worth just because they have different plumbing.
Can proponents not have any inkling how offensive that is to an awful lot of Brits?
Sid,
‘I thought the sentence is quite clear. How much of the full blown formal sharia implementation are you willing to forego?’
You are addressing me as if I am pushing for it.
Here is something to amuse you. As I said on the previous thread – I would like to apply amputations to the rich and the elite first. If they go for it and we see half of the elite going round with only one hand, then I might consider whether they are genuine or not. Otherwise they are using it exert their control over the masses.
On the other hand (not a pun) if the argument is correct that it would be a deterrent, then we the masses would not have lost out would we?
To amuse you specifically, I had always wanted Zia al Haq to be tried under Sharia for crimes against the people. That would have been justice indeed.
Although being against the death penalty I would have then campaigned to have his sentence commuted.
Sid:
‘Saqib, do you see a law which states that Nigella should be forced to pass on only half the due to her daughters she passes to her sons, even if she wants otherwise? If not, you’re not really comparing apples with apples are you?’
I wasn’t really making a point Sid, just wanted to gage your response. Obviously, it seems you are content that a women can run the risk of receiving nothing if her parents deem it as their individual prerogative. This is still more common actually in cases where children born out of wedlock (and not recognized by their fathers) do not inherit; these often being the poorest members of society. In this regards, the Shariah takes a holistic look at these issues in light of is aims (Maqasid)
Is this fair for parents to decide to deny their children inheritance? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t, however this largely depends upon people’s ideas on wealth, how it is created and distributed, and the economic realities in which people live under.
Refresh, you failed to answer the question.
Is this fair for parents to decide to deny their children inheritance? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t, however this largely depends upon people’s ideas on wealth, how it is created and distributed, and the economic realities in which people live under.
Yes, because you know why? Most parents would pass on an equal share of their property to their kids irrespective of sex. But sharia will not allow that, whether you want to or not. This is, in my opinion, is far more unfair than the odd person who does not pass on anything to their children, because that is certainly not the norm.
‘Refresh, you failed to answer the question.’
Yes – I did didn’t I.
Give me a checklist and I’ll tell you.
Refresh, some intellectual honesty from you wouldn’t go amiss right about now.
Sonia,
Your #199.
‘Refresh – to answer your question in 180 – very simply : a couple get married, one is a more pious observant Muslim than the other. ( we both know there are many shades of ‘muslimness’) both come from muslim families. they want a divorce at some stage. man wants to do it via sharia court, woman doesn’t. they are already pissed off with each other, and he wants one thing, she wants another. She will want custody of the teenaged children too, and thinks she has a better chance under civil law.
perhaps you can see where the myriad problems might come in?’
I do see. That is the problem of divorce. Its messy, at best of times. Not necessarily that of Sharia.
If you reversed your example, and it is the man that wants to resort to civil courts – it suggests that its not specifically a gender issue.
Having had a read through the arguments for and against the ABC’s suggestions I can’t say I see a single reason why any aspect of Sharia should be codified in UK Law or that UK Law should ratify any judgements etc from self appointed UK Sharia ‘courts’.
Indeed those ‘courts’ should be wound up as well. This includes the highly unwelcome appearence of Somali courts as well. There is no place for any attempt at a parrallel civil or criminal justice legal system within the UK. One law for all.
Sid:
‘Saqib, you’re deluding yourself. Most muslim-majority states are run by strong-arm regimes of authocratic military despots married to clerical religionsists, thereby giving autocracy a moral privelege.’
Sid, I am not deluding myself, rather it is the case you don’t have a nuanced understanding of some of these power-relationships.
If that isn’t the case, why do many ‘Islamists’ and ‘radical clerics’ languish in the prisons and dundgens of many of these states? It is these forces that want change.
I hardly think, by the way that Turkey has a deeply entrenched religious/military bond, do you? In fact the secularists there are happy to see the army intervene to keep out the evil Islamists, even when elected through a popular mandate.
In truth Sid, I do take the substantive assumptions of your arguments, that at times some clergy have tried to influence these autocratic regimes and keep in place some aspects of shariah, i.e. Pakistan. However, for the regimes this is more about Realpolitik, for they feel they need to show some of their ‘Islamic’ credentials to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people.( hence you point about ‘moral privilege being a valid one) For the clergy, reasons can be the allure of power (corruption), or a desire to mitigate much of the harm they see in society by preserving what little they can of Islam.
‘Most people in these muslim-majorty states want out of this arrangement and would like full blown democracy. Especially women, if the modern histories of Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia etc are to be believed.’
Most people do, however they also want a pre-defined result of how this ‘democracy’, or how I would define it, ‘representation’ will play itself out.
I think the ‘progressive secular’ forces you are alluding to do want democracy and openness, but fear that they will be out mobilsed by those who want to move in the opposite direction, hence at times, just like some clergy, will back autocratic regimes as a lesser of two evils.
‘It gives paramount religious significance to Islam at the cost of other religions and pluralism in general. This also hands a sop to religious supremacism which is most Muslims have grown up to believe is quite normal.’
Well, that has always been the case, for Muslim’s do believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the final chain of Messengers to humanity. Hence i don’t think this in itself will dissuade Muslims from Shariah.
Sid,
What else can I say? Your one-liners aren’t really all that honest are they.
Does it not occur to you that I might not know and I might just want to hear views and appreciate the positives and the negatives?
Well, that has always been the case, for Muslim’s do believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the final chain of Messengers to humanity. Hence i don’t think this in itself will dissuade Muslims from Shariah.
Which country has full sharia implementation?
Refresh, I only mde one one-liner, and it wasn’t as inscrutable as you’re trying to make it out to be at all. You want to sit on the fence but attack Sonia’s views. When you’re asked how much sharia you would like to see, you avoid the question and don’t answer the question. That suggests intellectual dishonesty, donchathink?
Sid:
‘Yes, because you know why? Most parents would pass on an equal share of their property to their kids irrespective of sex. But sharia will not allow that, whether you want to or not. This is, in my opinion, is far more unfair than the odd person who does not pass on anything to their children, because that is certainly not the norm.’
I think you will find Nigella’s children may beg to differ. By the way, do you think it is unfair that the State can currently tax up to 40% of inheritance at the top rate?
Actually, you one argue, if the maths are down, that a woman can inherit more in the shariah, then her secular counterparts once all these caveats have been established (only 60% would be up for grabs remember)
Interesting you say it would be against the norm, however it is interesting that when we see things such as these amongst Muslims, that are against the ‘norm’ they are highlighted as being indicative of a flawed concept, but not here. Perhaps all systems have there merits and demerits based upon our beliefs and values.
Sonia@193: I have no problems with you being strident; I do have problems with your abuse. You have called Avi stupid and an idiot and I’m unclear why you feel righteous about this approach when, as you say, you are striving to stand up for your rights. Is the best way to claim entitlement to rights to abuse the rights of others to decent treatment?
Sid:
(Saqib) ‘Well, that has always been the case, for Muslim’s do believe that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is the final chain of Messengers to humanity. Hence i don’t think this in itself will dissuade Muslims from Shariah.’
(Sid)’Which country has full sharia implementation?’
Not sure how you extrapolated this question from my statement. In any case, your initial point Post 224 was about Muslims gradually rejecting Shariah once they understood its framework, this is what i reject. It seems this will only take us in circles, for i have elaborated on the substantive points in my previous threads.
i’m just going to congratulate myself on being so fecking reasonable. hurrah for me. now:
now the issue with this of course is that there is not mutual consent. the jewish BD is concerned with equity, but this is most often a matter of the husband agreeing to pay the amount of alimony specified in the marriage contract. ironically enough this is a lot larger for the more religious who take it more seriously. the BD is not interested in encroaching on custody battles (and in any case has no means to affect an appeal to the civil court of the land) and in any case tends to assume the woman would be better off with custody. the important thing is preventing a *subsequent* marriage taking place which might not be permissible, with very poor effects on the subsequent children. the only thing i have noticed which appears to affect their decision-making is when one member of the couple declares that they’re going to continue to live a religious lifestyle and the other one gives the opposite impression – in such cases it is common for the BD to rule in favour of the more religious party, which is unsurprising if possibly inequitable – but in such cases, someone who feels wronged always has the possibility of resorting to the civil courts. and, of course, in some of the less mainstream BD, there are sometimes allegations of bribery and corruption. the trouble is that the main BD keeps very good records indeed and you may stick two fingers up on them now, but in 20-30 years time when someone wants to get married or divorced or buried or get their kids into a jewish school, it’s going to come back and bite you on the arse. so it’s in everyone’s interest to play ball.
sid:
it’s not limited to ruling on these matters, its just that it is those matters that generally require its intervention as these concern questions of personal status and a transition between one religious label and another and, obviously, only a BD is in a position to supervise this transition.
perhaps we could all agree that if anyone in the UK wishes to have recourse to the civil courts at any point, nobody should be able to prevent them from doing so, regardless of their interactions with religious authorities? of course, the consequences of their actions as far as the religious authorities are concerned are a matter for themselves, but they remain free at any point to tell the religious authority concerned to go and stick it up their bum.
incidentally, sid, full inheritance for women was established in the Torah in the case of the daughters of zelophekhad, in case you were interested.
i actually think that mosques ought to have registrars that can fill out the civil form inside the mosque at the same time as the nika ceremony; this is what we do at synagogues and it is what is done at any *venue* that is licensed for civil marriage, including hotels and ships; all you need is a registry book and a licensed registrar; there is no reason this registrar cannot also be a mosque functionary as well. divorce, obviously, is a slightly different thing but it seems to me that there’s no good reason to make all the guests schlep between the registry office and the mosque or temple or gurdwara, especially when they’re all going to have to schlep to the hotel or hall later for dinner and dancing, or piggyback bhangra and jack daniels, however it is people choose to celebrate.
this is quite an extreme example but it does at least point out that when people talk about “what we need in der UK is the sharia law for der musslims, innit”, they often mean very different things depending. perhaps we are now getting to a point where the muslim world needs its own shulkhan arukh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulkhan_Aruch either way it seems pretty clear that there’s no such beast as “sharia” any more than there’s such a beast as “islam”; what there are are a number of different traditions within a wider framework.
well, not that i’m advocating a “haskalah” for islam, or a set of reformist schisms, but some development is certainly required if you ask me. in a way, the fact that our acceptance into wider society took
place before the women’s movement is probably the reason much of this still persists in halakhah.
ditto for jewish marriage.
all in all, if rowan williams is unable to make a point like this without being so vague as to leave himself open to this kind of interpretation, he is frankly a bit incompetent.
b’shalom
bananabrain
I think you will find Nigella’s children may beg to differ. By the way, do you think it is unfair that the State can currently tax up to 40% of inheritance at the top rate?
Did you know that her children will still have access to he rproperties? They won’t be com[pletely left in the lurch.
But why you’re using Nigella’s case to argue for Sharia, is also intellectually dishonest. i think the definition of the “norm” in this case is that parents want equal inheritance for their kids irrespective of gender.
Does sharia apply that, do you think?
Sid:
‘But why you’re using Nigella’s case to argue for Sharia, is also intellectually dishonest. i think the definition of the “norm” in this case is that parents want equal inheritance for their kids irrespective of gender.’
I didn’t your case against the norm, in fact i would agree, however my point is it does happen, and in case not involving failed journalists who turn to cooking.
‘Does sharia apply that, do you think?’
No it doesn’t…there you go, a straight answer.
However their are reasons for this, which are predicated upon a holistic understanding of socio-ecomic dynamics, some of which i have rehearsed. Hence in this overall scheme it is fair, well that is my conclusion.
You haven’t my question on the 40% Sid.
CiF has a good piece on the Canadian experience:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/02/sharia_law_in_canada_almost.html
http://www.nosharia.com/eng.htm
Look like Canada’s Muslims had a lucky escape there!
TCH
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/asim_siddiqui/2008/02/reinventing_sharia.html
you kinda missed this link tch….
‘You want to sit on the fence but attack Sonia’s views.’
I objected to her obscuring the issues, which I found prejudicial to the debate. You need to go back and look at that dialogue again.
In the end I distilled her objections down to the issue of compulsion. And add to that the question of the choice of Qadi, which to me is no different to how people view individual judges in the civil courts. Speak to lawyers, they know which judge might look at their client more favourably.
You should not become too fond of making accusations of intellectual dishonesty, when it may seem to the casual observer that you are prepared to accept the same argument from a different messenger.
Sofia:
Read the article, fairly good about what the debate needs to focus on in terms of family and finance. However with the greatest of respect to Mr Siddiqi, he himself is highly ignorant of shariah himself, demonstrated by his constant carping about ‘multiple’ interpretations’ on issues upon which there has been consensus amongst scholars dating back to the early generations. Funny how he doesn’t afford the same interpretive latitude to Al-Qaeeda.
By the way guys, Mr Siddiqi’s father is the head of the self-styled ‘Muslim Parliament’…Forget about parallel laws, this guy has a parallel political institution for hwihc he is the sole, unelected representative…muppet.
i don’t think there is any ‘obscuring’ of issues on my part – au contraire, i have pointed out what i think the problems are, and have gone into some detail about the particular areas that concern me.
I have made reference to a wide range of issues which I think are connected, and I have made clear I am passionate about them. How that obscures anything for Refresh or anyone, I fail to see. Or causes a problem. They too are capable to typing long long comments and multiple comments, here or elsewhere, i.e. their own blogs, and saying what their views are. They might not like my views, or the way i express them, , but i fail to see how anything i said is ‘obscuring’ the issue or is prejudicial to it. The ‘issue’ is not a simple one, and if by reference to the many aspects of how confusing and problematic it could all be, scares confuses, and upsets some of you, well perhaps you don’t have the stomach for all this.
Zohra, i really don’t feel i need to explain myself to you or why I called avi an idiot, i wasn’t suggesting i am ‘righteous’ but i refuse to retract what i have been saying and the way i have been saying it. Sorry if you don’t like it, but again, i’m not here to be nice.
By the way, do you think it is unfair that the State can currently tax up to 40% of inheritance at the top rate?
Absolutely. There you go, a straight answer. But at least we can influence legislature to change it without the risk of falling into the category of mortal sin (haram) for doing so.
“i actually think that mosques ought to have registrars that can fill out the civil form inside the mosque at the same time as the nika ceremony”
Bananabrain, these already exist..and in many cases, the imams will not carry out a nikkah unless and until the civil registration is carried out.
Saqib, I would disagree with you on issues to do with shariah…many cases for example in divorce that are open to interpretation..
this whole “argument” is really beginning to bug me because everyone is jumping on this bandwagon…again..all laws are open to distortion and abuse..it is up to the law makers and enforcers as well as all to take ownership…
Saqib, could you please let me know areas of shariah (civil) that are not open to interpretation vs those that are…as a woman I believe that my religion is just..what i think is unjust, are the people who are enforcing it..and this is what frightens me. I suppose i am lucky that i don’t live in saudia arabia…if it weren’t for the holy sites there i wouldn’t give a rat’s arse about it…and it is sad that as a muslim i cannot defend their version of islam..i say their version because if saudis were the only kinds of muslims i knew then i wouldn’t want to be a muslim at all..
Sonia
Have I understood your issues correctly:
Compulsion and prejudicial Qadis?
Which in turn gives us iniquitous outcomes?
Sonia,
You said you have studied this subject a lot – is this with a scholar or self-taught?
Would you say you are Muslim as it appears you have major issues with the faith?
sofia that link was a good one. asim siddiqui’s article was very clear – where he points to things like “Wherever English law and “Islamic law” differ, “Islamic law” must give way.” That sort of thing is really what people are wanting to know about etc.
refresh that was certainly one of my issues, but as i have pointed out, the other main one was who would be affected by such an introduction, given the intertwining of people’s lives through marriage. the question whether one (regardless of gender) would have free choice in NOT using such courts, and really how it would overlay with civil law. so for example, how dissolving a nikah in such a court would impact a legal marriage which happened under civil law etc. (it seems currently the shariah courts only can dissolve nikahs, nothing else, which is actually a very different ballgame, seeing as an islamic nikah is not recognised as a legal tie in this country anyway) these were the areas of my concern. and then i brought up the fact that the reason why i thought it would get complicated if sharia councils can start dissolving legally recognized marriages by dissolving the couple’s islamicmarriage – was the business of religious pressure to go to religious courts. so i suppose you can sum it up as , my concern is about what teeth do the religious courts have, whether people who dont really want recourse to religious courts – are bullied into it?
(and the underlying attitude is – yes my personal view of divorce under islam not being much good for a woman. especially if she wants custody of her kids who might happen to say – be around 15 or 16 years old, and especially if she wants to remarry afterwards. )
i havent ’studied’ Zaheer it i have LOOKED into it – as someone who comes from a country which is majority muslim, and is automatically defined as a Muslim in that country because of my family background*. Divorce law in bangladesh depends on whether you are muslim or not, and so i looked into divorce law in bangladesh, and also to understand the wider implications, i have looked into what rights we women are supposed to have, im not pretending to be an expert, far from it, in fact the more you look the more you realise there is a lot of disagreement on implementation.
*and basically there you are defined as a muslim if you come from a Muslim family and have the muslim name, unless you want to declare yourself an apostate, which i am certainly not about to do.
Thanks Sonia for #271 thats much appreciated. It gives clarity to the whole thread, for me anyway.
‘refresh that was certainly one of my issues, but as i have pointed out, the other main one was who would be affected by such an introduction, given the intertwining of people’s lives through marriage. the question whether one (regardless of gender) would have free choice in NOT using such courts, and really how it would overlay with civil law. so for example, how dissolving a nikah in such a court would impact a legal marriage which happened under civil law etc. (it seems currently the shariah courts only can dissolve nikahs, nothing else, which is actually a very different ballgame, seeing as an islamic nikah is not recognised as a legal tie in this country anyway) these were the areas of my concern.’
Does your observation in the second half answer your concerns?
‘these were the areas of my concern. and then i brought up the fact that the reason why i thought it would get complicated if sharia councils can start dissolving legally recognized marriages by dissolving the couple’s islamicmarriage – was the business of religious pressure to go to religious courts.’
I can’t see an answer to the question of pressure – in litigious matters usually each party will seek to maximise advantage, and there will be scenarios where one gains under sharia but loses under civil. Cynicism may well be the order of the day, and that’s going to be down to the individuals concerned. Bullying may well be a problem, but would not be a consequnce of sharia. I am sure that happens now under civil, especially where it concerns custody. Its a brutal game it seems.
‘(and the underlying attitude is – yes my personal view of divorce under islam not being much good for a woman. especially if she wants custody of her kids who might happen to say – be around 15 or 16 years old, and especially if she wants to remarry afterwards. )’
I would have thought the question of what the child wants will probably play a part. On the otherhand the father may have problems taking responsibility. My feeling is that there has to be room for negotiations.
I didn’t know there was a problem with re-marrying, unless you’re suggesting custody of children has to be given up by the woman if she remarries? If that is so, does anyone know the rationale behind that?
Sonia
One question, do you accept that saying Talaq 3 times (ie talaq talaq talaq) will not result in divorce? That its a myth.
Reason I ask is that is something you’ve repeated upthread, and I think it is misleading.
This is all His Graces’s fault for being such an inveterate waffler that any point he has to make is suffocated in caveats and generalisations.
If even one person decides to live by sharia law (in such a way that does not conflict with civil or criminal law) then of course sharia law exists in this country.
If two people agree to a third deciding an issue through interpretation of sharia law, then sharia courts exist in this country.
You can’t stop people from seeking advice and guidance from those they regard as having a religious/moral authority, nor should we. Hell, the legal system prefers it that way as it eases their workload. If we are talking about a voluntary arbitration system, then in essence it is no different to Relate or whatever.
Personally, I look forward to the day when fewer and fewer people see clerics as the go-to guys to settle disputes, but that has to be their decision.
However, the bish’s apparent suggestion that sharia specifically should be incorporated into law would seem to offer these courts an authority and legitimacy which takes them to another level. Increasing the power clerics have over the lives of their co-religionists is, to me, a retrograde step. His Grace would be better employed in reducing the privileges his own religious hierarchy currently enjoys.
Anyone is free to publicly announce a relationship (marry) in any way that gains the approval of their religion/community/peer group. But if they want that to be recognised in law then it must be civilly registered. Similarly with divorce. That’s not a complicated idea, most people manage it quite well. Some choose one, some the other, some both.
But if, as seems to be the case, those who dispense rulings are unregulated, unregistered, lacking in ‘quality control’ and unable to agree even on the basics then how would increasing their authority be a positive step?
There must be only one law with the authority of law and it must be free from any supernatural element which claims to be beyond dispute. If people agree to settle matters without going to law, that is their right, but those subsequent judgements must not even be seen to have the force of law, not even a shadow of it.
As for the idea that the government should attempt to decide who is or is not authorised to make these pronouncements, which pronouncements are valid and which are not … that way madness lies.
Sofia:
‘Saqib, I would disagree with you on issues to do with shariah…many cases for example in divorce that are open to interpretation..’
Not sure what ‘issues’ you meant Sister, for I didn’t specify any, rather made a general statement that there are issues which are agreed upon through consensus; if there weren’t, then not much would be left of Islam other than a set of generic, often vague values…In terms of divorce, well there is a framework within which a body of different opinions exist, and newer rulings formulated, hence there is room for juristic interpretation to suit time, place and context. Perhaps we may actually agree on this point, if this is what you were alluding to.
‘Saqib, could you please let me know areas of shariah (civil) that are not open to interpretation vs those that are…as a woman I believe that my religion is just..what i think is unjust, are the people who are enforcing it..and this is what frightens me.’
I am not in a position to list any exhaustive points, for unlike Asim I give regard to the mainstream scholarly tradition from all schools of thought. However Islamic jurisprudence is predicated upon certain agreed sources and principles, which vary in degree and order. These are the Qur’an, Hadith, Consensus, Qiyas, Urf… This then informs our framework of jurisprudence, in juxtaposition to the aims of the shariah which have been deduced. Now, there have always been ‘odd’ and ‘weak’ opinions, however they have not been considered as points of differences in interpretation, but as aberrations. This is true of any body of knowledge which has defined sources, such as law, or the physical sciences (look at climate change). In terms of particular issues listed by Asim, i.e. inheritance, witness, etc I have never heard or read a jurist or a school of thought claim there are differences of opinion on most of these issues. Moreover, most of these are stated points in the Qur’an, and just like we consider similar points, stated in the Qur’an, such as eating halal, avoiding fornication and sodomy, prohibition on alcohol, these are rulings are fixed. (Although Imam Abu Hanifah did initially permit alcohol, based on weak evidence, which he later amended)
This is not the same however as claiming that there are mitigating circumstances which may require a different course of action whilst those mitigating conditions remain (and are worked to be removed). For example there is no real difference of opinion that the flesh of swine is prohibited. However we know, from the Qur’an, that due to ‘necessity’ it can be allowable as long as the conditions of necessity remain. This is not the same as saying there are different opinions on eating swine, per se, which is where Asim is coming from.
Anyway, this forms the backbone of the concept of necessity, however there are complexities how this is worked out, and can’t just be applied liberally according to a utilitarian definition of good or just. For example, a Muslim male can claim that he should be allowed to enjoy a sexual relationship with a girl, as long as he loves her, and not out of sexual lust, which may be the underlying Islamic rationale for its prohibition in the shariah. This can sound perfectly reasonable, as it is the norm in our society, and, moreover it can be argued that such a condition of virtual abstinence is psychologically and physiologically damaging to the individual and society. To be honest sister my main points were directed at Asim, for I have read many of his writings, listened to his talks, and those like him, like Sardar et al.
Your point about justice is interesting. I agree wholeheartedly that Islam is just, however justice is an abstract concept, which cannot be easily defined. For example it can be argued that Islam’s position on homosexuality is unjust, unfair and irrational which in a secular context, may well appear so. I would argue on the contrary, based on a deeper and holistic theological reading. I take your point about the people who apply the laws, and yes there are issues, as with any law, to do with context and application…in the Muslim world this is further complicated by meddling political autocrats and institutional corruption.
By the way Sister, have you actually ever lived in Saudi Arabia, as the place you describe is very different to the one described by the many people who I have acquaintance with in that country? (this also includes women) Funny, during the gulf, many thousands of US personnel were so repulsed by the ‘Saudi’ version of Islam that they actually embraced it. Moreover, what is reported in the media, is often the negative points, whilst ignoring the very good things their. I remember a couple of years ago a man was executed for killing his wife, which seems strange in a country thought to be thoroughly misogynist. I don’t buy the argument of there being different versions of Islam, rather it is to do with understanding and application of both scripture and context. Of course the monarchy is unelected and unaccountable, and corruption reigns very heavily, evidenced by the fact that US troops are still based there. However this is true of many Muslim states.
Don:
‘Personally, I look forward to the day when fewer and fewer people see clerics as the go-to guys to settle disputes, but that has to be their decision.’
Hey Don, perhaps, in the future they might be coming to blogs such as PP for such moral guidance, arise Shaikh Sunny.
I’m unsure how this relates to what he said.
Sonia,
I accept you don’t agree with the Islamic Law on divorce but would you use the system or do you find it completely unacceptable?
Is it all of Shariah or just parts?
My issue here is people are encompassing a range of views based implementations rather than what the law says.
I know some of the Bangladeshi Mosques are saying that marrying children to people from Bangladesh is best avoided.
Would you bring up your children as Muslim or with no religion?
The problem as I see it is much more that ill educated men hide behind Shariah for their own wrongdoings thus it gets a bad reputation and politicians use it for their own gain.
Z
Sid:
‘Absolutely. There you go, a straight answer. But at least we can influence legislature to change it without the risk of falling into the category of mortal sin (haram) for doing so.’
Thanks for the categorical reply.
Your right, you can influence the legislature to challenge this, that is indeed positive.
However there are also negatives. If the likes of Johann Hari had their way the 40% threshold could be increased…the point being their is no cap which can guarantee inheritance rights for all, be they men or women. Hence in 20 years time, people might be better of having shariah compliant inheritence rights, including women. Maybe that’s what Sunny meant by the 20 year wait.
Kulvinder, lighten up, its friday
Sonia,
With respects the law in the UK works well because the people who administer the law ie. the judges are well educated and versed in the law.
However any law is dependant on the people who administer. In your experience in the Bangladeshi community are women more comfortable using civil courts or shariah courts or both?
Most of the interviews on TV since the Good Dr spoke have been with women and it seems some like it and some don’t. Baroness Warsi didn’t want it on Newsnight but another lady did.
Saqib
in 20 years time I’ll possibly be dead or on the way, and if people like you have your way, my daughter will *definitely* not be allowed to drive, vote, work, marry whomsoever she choses and be prevented from inheriting 50% of the chattle I am busting my balls to leave to her. I will fight that bogus mathematics to the last breath I have, so you can stick your sharia where the sun don’t shine (Walthamstowe).
OMG, this thread has gone insane. People calling names to one another left and right! Is everyone really this frustrated?
Oh well, might as well take out all angst and whatnot out in cyberspace. Fairly harmless.
Douglas, thanks for back-up, although I am not sure what the purpose of the back-up is…? I didn’t see any sexist comment. It’s also not nice to call someone names?
Avi:
“1. Those Muslim Men and Women who use the “unofficial” Sharia courts. Even the Govts. favourite Muslim Cleric Zaki Badawi ran one. As numerous news media showed yesterday they exist up and down the country. What is being said is that should be brought under laws.”
Could you please be specific? “Those Muslim men and women” are… and how many of them are there?
“2. Again he said it quite clearly and it was repeated on Newsnight – check the webcast. He referred to the Civil Law mainly in cases in marriage and divorce.”
I can’t check the webcast; do you mind telling me specifically what are the issues with the Civil Law w/r/t marriage and divorce? Or point me to a comment that already lays this out.
Can everyone stop be so vague and talking about “aspects of Civil Law” which pro Shariaites dislike and actually tell us what, how, and WHY the Civil Law is not ok, and what pro-Shariaites take issue with?
Sid,
Is it possible to be Muslim and not agree with the religous laws of Islam?
Also some of what you describe is cultural creeping into religion.
Do you think that the laws are wrong? Aren’t they a basic feature of Islam?
Sid:
in 20 years time I’ll possibly be dead or on the way, and if people like you have your way, my daughter will *definitely* not be allowed to drive, vote, work, marry whomsoever she choses and be prevented from inheriting 50% of the chattle I am busting my balls to leave to her. I will fight that bogus mathematics to the last breath I have, so you can stick your sharia where the sun don’t shine (Walthamstowe).
Sid…please, you sound like a fanatical fundamentalist, how dare you take my role.
Anyway, thank you for a very considered, mature and engaging post Sid. Well, with this type of intellectual rigour, of course us Islamists don’t stand a chance!
I hope you are around Sid in 20 years, as you don’t seem all that old. Enjoy the weekend mate… wasalam.
Desi Italiana,
1. I don’t know how many there are. But the news media is reporting that there are a number of courts up and down the UK. The Times had an article yesterday.
2. In Islam, Judaism, possibly Hinduism and Sikhism as well in order to have a divorce or marriage from the religous viewpoint one needs to go through the religous legal process. Trial periods, councelling etc.
In Civil Law one can apply for a divorce granted by the state. This isn’t good enough for the religous people.
So they need to go through a seperate process in religous courts.
The main issue here seems to be around Muslim Courts and the Shariah.
For example a marriage conducted by a registrar isn’t acceptable to Muslims it must be done by an Imam.
Hence civil law isn’t good enough so couples do the religous one first and the civil one later.
Possibly Sofia and Sonia when they got married would have gone through both of these.
Sid:
What was your reference to Walthamstowe regarding?
Is it possible to be Muslim and not agree with the religous laws of Islam?
Yes, absolutely. I believe in the essence, metaphysical truth also known as the spirit of the faith as opposed to being bogged down in layers and layers of contradictory, unhealthy, demotivating letter (law) of the religion. But then, I’m a sufi like that.
Also some of what you describe is cultural creeping into religion.
And more power to culture, I say. Are you saying that the present salafis have not inculcated their interprestation with Saudi, and specifically Najdi, culture? Who is to say which culture is superior? You? The Malik al Saudi?
Do you think that the laws are wrong? Aren’t they a basic feature of Islam?
Some of them are simply inappropriate to the times we live in. And since there is no mechanism in place that is universally accepted as a way to update them, they will remain so. Unless that form of ijtihad happens, I shall continue to live without being troubled by the ancient laws of a desert race in a culturally unstable group of people.
Lighten up Saqib, its Friday.
Sid,
I am not saying anything I am just asking.
Do you have to accept any of the laws in Shariah?
If the laws are ancient then do you follow things like Halal as that was an ancient food law?
Would you go for pilgramage as again that is an ancient desert thing?
What about people who say the koran is an ancient book that needs to be replaced like Wilders in Holland?
Sid, I’m still just curious about the Walthamstowe comment. Got anything interesting lined up for the weekend?
Islam online on how a divorce takes place:
The problem is not whether the man says it three times or a 100, it is that it is about him ’saying’ it. No recourse to legal action needed! yes i find that problematic. Yes he has to have witnesses, yes he has a waiting period in between his declarations, during which he can ‘reclaim’ his wife if he’s changed his mind. Sorry, I still don’t see how that is so acceptable, why is it better than say the divorce rules under English law.
Did you think that – because I didn’t make reference to the witnesses and the waiting period, and the fact that Islam tries it make it so that if there is any chance at reconciliation, the man should take it? – that I do not know about this? That is why i do not approve? That if i knew about it, I would?
perhaps you have got different information from me, but an extract from islam online’s link above:
If you think this is incorrect information, please let me know. What is the correct procedure for divorce, according to you? Do enlighten me please, and please be sure to include what you believe the situation re: financial settlements, and custody to be ( seeing as you think i have been reading incorrect information)
This is what Sunnipath has to say about divorce by text message – (according to Hanafi fiqh)
And this is another site I have looked at -
to me that this whole focus on the man’s ‘marital’ authority over his wife, not needing to go to a court of law like she would do, being able to decide if ‘he’ wants her back, suggests there is an assumption that the wife is a ‘possession’. Perhaps you will disagree, but we will have to agree to disagree, this is my opinion. A wife is not something you ‘give’ away, witnesses, waiting periods, or not. A marriage is a thing 2 people enter, and therefore 2 need to leave it, and any fair divorce mechanism needs to be built on that basis.. And in my opinion, everything i have read on Islam and divorce implies very strongly the man is in a more powerful position. Perhaps you will disagree on that, no doubt, but that’s the way i’m seeing it.
Sid:
‘Yes, absolutely. I believe in the essence, metaphysical truth also known as the spirit of the faith as opposed to being bogged down in layers and layers of contradictory, unhealthy, demotivating letter (law) of the religion. But then, I’m a sufi like that.’
Right, so you believe in Sidism!!!
Seriously, mainstream sufis, such as Nuh Keller, Abdul Hakim Murad, Hamza Yusuf all subscribe to the shariah. Keller has edited a compendium on jurisprudence which is reputed to be an excellent guide. Hence I am not sure what sufism you follow, other than copy and paste, mix and match.
And Refresh – please can you read this link and let me know what you think of this lovely Muslim’s ladies hard work in gathering a lot of information and the problems surrounding Custody of Children?
Do you agree that women are in a fragile position? –
Ave Cohen:
Can I just say I have found your posts, on this and other threads to be very eruidte and incisive, and thoroughly engrossing to read. Look forward to more of your comments…and your own blog.
This may be of interest to people:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/gimsonunbound/feb08/rowanwilliamswasright.htm
“What a fine lecture the Archbishop of Canterbury gave yesterday. It has provoked an outpouring of ignorant and brutish abuse, but has also exposed the sham liberalism of so many in public life and the media….”
Avi cohen asked a question up there (268)
well that’s an interesting point. is this about the fact that people think mullahs have to decree a divorce as well otherwise one is still married in the eyes of the ‘Lord’?
Someone asked Sunni path this very question – worth reading the whole link..:
interesting that.
of course there is clearly going to be an issue if people who marry under nikah – who don’t have a civil ceremony – want their nikah dissolved, as they can’t dissolve something in an ordinary court of law – when it isn’t recognised legally! certainly a woman would have to go somewhere then to get a divorce, if she is only islamically married, that is the only place she can get ‘islamically’ divorced.
Good for you Sid…
I hadn’t realised there were so many polygamous marriages here in the UK, this must be what all this fuss is about.
Sonia,
Would the situation you say not be solved by a pre-marriage contract?
How does woman then divorce in Shariah?
A quick serach on the internet reveals:
http://www.submission.org/women/divorce.html
They say that:
“The divorce laws are applicable to both man and woman (4:35 and 2:237 indicate this) except that there are certain additional laws which a divorced woman has to observe.”
Sonia said: “well that’s an interesting point. is this about the fact that people think mullahs have to decree a divorce as well otherwise one is still married in the eyes of the ‘Lord’?”
I think this is why the unofficial Shariah courts exist because people believe they have to go through the religous process as well.
Which is why the original debate started.
I think usually people marry using the religous and civil processes. hence they feel they have to do both if things break down. Hence we have Shariah Courts and Hence Dr. Williams made a statement that maybe this should be brought into aspects of civil law ie. arbitration.
One other point which is interesting is that many of the right wing commentators are saying this is a Christian country with Christian Laws.
So which is it civil or christian laws?
The public seem to think the laws are British and Christian.
I’m inclined to say to Christian law what I’d like to say to arbitrators of sharia. The self-designated thought police can do what they like.
Know wha I mean ‘arry?
‘So which is it civil or christian laws?’
Civil, with remnants of previous christian dominance. Which remnants should continue to be deleted, and certainly not augmented by further religious influence.
I bet none of the Sharia mongers on this thread (saqib, avi ‘call me Muhammed’ cohen, sofia etc) will be able to address sonia’s evidence and subsequent points.
The Wandering African:
Why don’t you make your own points instead of hiding behind other people and there supposed evidence. Perhaps I can then take YOU more seriously.
Like I said, you will ignore her posts that go into details regarding Sharia Law.
Not one of you has even attempted to address them.
You in particular Saqib cut a pathetic figure.
The Wondering African:
‘You in particular Saqib cut a pathetic figure’
Well at least you read my pathetic ramblings. Keep hiding behind Sonia, hope you feel comfortable.
Avi,
If there is a case for Sharia law, please make it in the context of the whole community, not just a relatively small segment of it. It can either stand on its’ own merits, which should be obvious to all, or it can fail.
The law ought to be above religious beliefs. The likes of your good self and Saqib may wish to constrain yourselves beyond what the law says for religious reasons, neither of you should have the right to impose that belief, unilaterally, on anyone but yourselves.
If you think what you are saying is right, then it should have universal validity. Personally I think you might struggle to persuade that wider community, which is why you both want exceptionalism.
I see no reason whatsoever why any religious faith shouldn’t provide arbitration during a marriage breakdown, as long as both parties are coming to that arbitration, without pressure
Saqib does seem to be embracing the more extreme ideas of the Saudi legal code without even a blink. Which I find utterly repellent.
A society that is still in the middle ages. Thanks, but no thanks.
Belief is private. Law is not. And neither should it be.
And Desi, if you cannot see the sexism that is frankly pretty well rampant on this thread, well, what can I say? This is a legal canon that has always been skewed towards maintaining a patriarchal view of society.
Women that submit to it willingly are, I would hazard, doing themselvs no favours whatsoever. Do you drive, for instance? Well, you couldn’t in Saqibs’ beloved Saudi Arabia. If I were one of you lot, I’d see that as an infringement of my civil liberties. Saqib would just shrug his shoulders and say ‘God said so’. What a cop out.
This is how Sunnipath describes the conditions under which Khul can take place ( this term is used to describe when a woman wishes to take up her right to initiate divorce). firstly this requires her to seek the intervention of a court, a Qadi, to seek and she will also need her husband’s permission as well:
The only difference between divorce and Khul’ is that a divorce is given by the man without demanding a financial payment form the wife, where as in khul’, the wife receives the divorce in return for a financial payment. This is usually in a situation where the husband in unwilling to give the divorce and the wife persuades him to issue the divorce in return of this payment.
“It should be remembered that a Khul’ can not come into effect without the consent and agreement of the husband. The wife can persuade him to enter into the agreement of Khul’ but not enforce it upon him. ”
In the event that that the husband does not give permission and the Qadi is not sympathetic, and does not feel that he has missed any obligations (i.e. if he does not think there are any grounds for divorce) SunniPath has the following to say:
This is all of course Sunni orthodoxy. The Shia’s seem more progressive.
yes well said douglas
Zaheer Imran,
You have quite a lot of bottle, don’t you? If you are the sort of idiot that has studied scripture for a lifetime and then says: “Pepsi is better than Coke”, which is what this thread is ultimately about, I’d say you, or your nominative friend, has been a complete waste of space and time on this planet.
Someone who does independent reading is unreliable, someone who is paid to read within the canon is right? Have I understood you, exactly?
Yes, I do believe I have.
What a pathetic arguement for scholarship.
Douglas – if as you say the law should be above religous belief then why when there is money to be made is the law adjusted to accomodate Shariah and the press don’t go mental? If the law is above then why are their religous exclusions in the law. You won’t address that issue.
Sonia appears to be someone who doesn’t accept the Islamic Faith and like Ms. Hirshi-Ali won’t come out and say that she isn’t Muslim. Thus her anger towards Islam is based upon her personnal experience and doesn’t reflect women as a whole.
Sonia is quite frankly choosing her examples with great care in order to push the view that Islam treats women unequally.
That is her right but then we also need to look at it in its entirity instead of liek you jumping in and saying she is right because that is what you want to believe and in fact have already made you mind up to this effect.
All I have said is that there needs to be a better understanding of Shariah and then a debate. I didn’t say put it on the law books.
Douglas – why for major law changes is there such debate and for this there isn’t debate but hysteria.
Why when the Head of the Anglican Church says that the law should look to accomodate some limited aspects of shariah is he asked to resign or be sacked and yet a member of the Nazi Youth who is Head of the Catholic Church inacts what is effectively a dodgy prayer noone bats an eyelid.
What is the fear of the debate?
Why can’t Muslim Women answer Sonia and why is it only her view of Shariah thatis acceptable?
A quick search on the internet earlier and I gave a link to an article that said the koranic verses applied to both.
Also why is it that Sonia doesn’t complain that Muslims hold the mother in far far far greater regard than the father?
Also if Islam is so opporesive to women as is being implied then why amongst the younger generation of females are they adopting Islamic Law – you see it everywhere in London, Birmigham, Manchester etc.
So basically their opinion doesn’t count and Sonia’s does above all else. Why can’t we listen to both?
Douglas also you own skewing is horrendous. Yes women can’t drive in Saudi but in other Muslim countries they can. So it is interpretation. You are picking arguments and using a sense of blackmail to railroad people to your opinion without a fair debate.
If you are so confident in your argument then frankly you don’t need this type of approach as your argument will win through.
“neither of you should have the right to impose that belief, unilaterally, on anyone but yourselves.”
But it is ok for you to tell everyone what to believe and impose that unilaterally. Even the Daily Telegraph has a column saying that the reaction of which you are typical is incorrect and this needs debate.
All those calling for freedom are in fact saying it is a freedom based on what they dictate.
Douglas what you still don’t get is that you are unilaterally deciding that this shouldn’t even be discussed and thus denying the people the right to look into it.
That is all the Archbishop said.
Sonia – if the Shia’s are more progressive as you put it then why is it that the Western Media use Iran as a constant example to scare people about Sharia?
All Law even in America is intervowen with religion. Even in China there is legislation for religion even though it doesn’t believe in it.
The law and religion are together precisely because of the number of people that follow religion.
All I am saying is have a reasoned debate. If the outcome is that people don’t want it fine. Your hurling accusations at me that are simply falsehood and deciding what I am saying to dicate to people that your view is the only one that is correct. For someone who says they are for freedom then you are pretty restrictive in letting people look at things.
Douglas – again there you go. How do you know the reading was independant? How do you know it was correct. It is a gross assumption.
You abusive approach frankly renders your claim that you want freedom for people as nonsense. Anyone who is speaking against your dictate is subject to an abuse that is unmatched in this thread.
This amazing gift you have for being able to read people’s mind must have made you incredibly wealthy or prehaps you just like putting falsehoods onto people and claiming you know what they said.
It isn’t even worth discussing anything with someone like you who is simply behaving like a little Blair – you know what is best for everyone and it doesn’t matter what anyone says you’ll doctor the evidence to suit you.
Next you’ll be going to war!
Douglas:
I think you are reading far too much into my comments about Saudi Arabia, I don’t agree with everything, every law that is passed their, anymore I do with laws passed in Britain.
On the other points, if you read my posts on this thread, I haven’t mentioned that I welcomed the ArchBishop’s comments…In fact on another, recent thread I had a similar discussion with Ravi Naik, and said that I didn’t understand how two parallel systems of law could operate in modern Britain (although historically in various Islamic empires or even Caliphate this was achieved). My position is simple, there should only be one law in the land, however people should be able to voluntarily enter into contractual relationships (which they do already) based on their own conventions. I particularly focused on inheritance as that is my prerogative. If the law can recognize this, and there is no contradiction, then fine.
Anyway, have a smashing weekend.
For you to have created a forum where this many people want to have this conversation is extraordinary. Congrats!
Saqib – he doesn’t read comments, he asks questions and then replies on peoples behalf and presents it as their view.
It is the kind of approach in distorting facts and opinions that Balir took whenb he went to war.
People are under attack because they have questioned his friends and that isn’t permissable in the Douglas World.
Avi,
It has always been a matter of complete astonishment to me that folk from a completely different cultural background from me can have, what, common cause? Damn near identical cause?
I have not, repeat not, gone looking for this. And yet, there it is. Right in front of me.
I have no idea whether Sunny sees’ me as a chum or not, but I have, without the slightest difficulty, agreed with 99% of what he has to say. To the extent of us both endorsing young Mr Obama.
Sonia, on the other hand, has indeed been my friend on here for a long time. Again, had you been able to insert a cigarette paper between what she thinks and what I believe, then you could legitimately say that I was supporting her out of friendship. Which is not the case. I do have a huge amount of time for Sonia, but frankly that has built up over time, time spent listening to and agreeing with her. It is sincerely down to believing she speaks a whole lot of sense.
It suggests to me that our differences – Sonias’, Sunnys’ and mine – are less important than our clear heads.
I suspect you’d see it somewhat different.
And, anyway, I’m quite amazed that Don has a religious bone in his body, what with me thinking he was a Richard Dawkins diehard.
Douglas – Most people have a common cause that they want to see good for everyone. There are differences of opinion.
Where you have let yourself down is by being abusive and also in your approach. You’ll find everyone including me is willing to listen to you and your concerns and most likely shares them.
But surely the debate needs to take place and you are simply saying it doesn’t because you know the results already. That is frankly patronising for Muslims.
The hysteria the press and your good self have generated has meant that little if any meaningful debate can take place. Possibly what thye and you want in this case.
With respect to Sonia I have listened to what she says again despite her early abuse. However there are other opinions which are just as valid and we need to listen to those and come to a decision that is for the common good.
If that is just civil law so be it but please don’t stop the debate using unsavoury tactics.
Wow!
Avi Cohen @ 321. How do you think I am responding to you, if as you say, I haven’t read what you have to say? Riddle me that.
But you have never answered any points that have been put to you, have you? Instead of trying to form some sort of ridiculous alliance with Saqib, the KSA fundamentalist, you’d try to engage in the real world of debate, you’d get along better. I think.
I am still asking you whether or not Shariah is something everyone in the UK should agree to, simply on the basis that it is an obviously better form of justice than what we have now. I think that persuading everyone of that would be a good start for your case.
I note that that is not what you are doing. Is it an ‘ad hominem’ to be accused of agreeing with your chums? I have no idea.
Douglas – I showed you a clear example earlier of you distorting what I said. Scroll up.
Again you are hurling false accusations at people and labelling people fundementalists. You never have engaged in debate you are simply spreading flasehoods about what people say and being abusive – again now.
Are you unable to read or comprehend. I’ve answered your question numerous times. I am not advocating shariah for fuck sake is that so hard to understand. I said the debate needs to take place with both sides being heard so people can form an opinion.
I said that most people don’t even know what Shariah Law actually is including many Muslims. How fucking hard is that to understand.
I think that Muslims in certain limited cases such as marriage and divorce can use religous law if both parties agree at the start and are happy with the outcome.
If you bothered to stop being abusive to people and listened then answered instead of simply asking a question, issuing an answer then pretending the person answered we might get somewhere.
For someone who claims to be so confident of the superiority of their position are scared shitless of having the debate and thus want to dicate a solution.
If anyone else had behaved like you then your freidn the owner would be all over them. But you are being given an awfullot of leeway and are using that to maximum abusive effect.
Is it possible for you to say your case without being abusive to people you disagree with.
Douglas, Avi
Cocoa time!
OK, Avi Cohen.
I think we have both calmed down somewhat. Let it be as clear as I can make it. I have no objection whatsoever to ‘religious’ arbitration where both parties want it.
I have a huge issue with any sort of idea that religious law should have supremacy over secular law. And this is just me speaking. I have no idea – well, yes I have, but leave that aside – to how Sunny or Sonia see that.
You must, surely, be able to see the fundamental difficulty that someone like me, a majoritarian agnostic, has with any concept of religious law? Majoritarian, in the sense that we are the majority.
Douglas,
With your #327 I win my wager!!
Avi @ 325,
Really? You did indeed argue that Shariah should be a subject for debate. What have I said that made you think I disagreed with that? All I was saying was that you needed to convince the whole community that it was a good thing before attempting to impose it. Apparently that got you into some sort of emotional, religious fandango.
If I have been guilty of any falsehoods on here, please, point them out to me. I will, obviously, retract them immediately. A difference of opinion is not a falsehood, imho.
Refresh @ 328,
But the odds were soo.. low.
Douglas,
It was tough going, watching the ping-pong for the last 100 posts was so painful.
#322
What me? Religious bone? Pass the steak-knife.
Wha?
Refresh,
Possibly.
But, perhaps ridiculously, I believe in what I speak.
It is maybe ping-pong to you, but I would not be saying what I am if I did not believe it just as fundamentaly as some of our friends. Their way is women not being allowed to drive cars, or frankly not appear in public.
This daft little country has spent an age, a fucking age, I tell you, trying to correct that sort of stupidity. For backward folk to argue otherwise drives me nuts.
And that is what they are. Backward folk.
Douglas
Yes I think you made that clear a 100 posts ago.
And as far as I could see Avi wasn’t disagreeing. That is what made it painful.
I think you’ve been arguing over the proverbial cigarette paper.
Douglas – as I said scroll up and you’ll see where you asked me a question, answered yourself and then implied it was my reply.
“I have a huge issue with any sort of idea that religious law should have supremacy over secular law.”
Douglas I will repeat again though to be honest I am getting fed up saying this. My opinion is that any law – religous or secular – has to and in fact must have justice for all. In the religous case that means for all including those that are not part of the religion.
Personally as long as the law is fair and just to all then I don’t give a hoot if it is religous or secular and I suspect most people don’t They want fairness and they want assurance that they can get justice.
Also Douglas for a law to work it cannot be imposed. Thus I never said it should be imposed. I am saying have the debate.
If you watched Newsnight today you’d have seen Paxman, some secular bloke and Tariq Ramadan. Paxman was quiet when the secular bloke was ranting and IO really mena ranting. But he would let Ramadan answer and wehn Ramadan complained he told him to get on with it. Thus not a fair debate.
If you want to discuss this then do it fairly, look at both sides and decide.
If it is to be civil law I don’t have any issue with that.
If it is civil law with religous arbitration to be confirmed by civil law I have no problem with that.
If Muslim women want to go to a civil court I have no problem with that.
If thye want to go to a religous court of their own free will and have that decision ratified by a civil court all of their own free will – then I have no problem with that.
My argument to you is that we as humans need to make life as easy as possible.
The level of hysteria in this debate to the point the Archbishop is being asked to resign is ludicrous. Pray tell me what he said was wrong that got your ire?
At the moment with respect you and The Sun have little difference in opinion. In fact oddly enough it is a section in the Telegraph that summed things up best.
I am all for listening to Sonia but I also want to listen to the other side which Sofia is putting. With more of this we all can get an informed opinion.
The way this debate has gone nationally is a disaster. It has caused unnecessary harm to community cohesion.
Unlike you I don’t view all religion as bad. It is a set of guidelines people live by. It gives them comfort. If the law can assist fone. If it can’t mosr religous people will abide by the law.
You’ll find most Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Bhuddists etc. are law abiding people. They obey the civil law. So to say they are about to impose something is hysteria based on scaremongering by the press and not on facts.
Secular Law in the USA allows torture, creates war, lies for supremacy. So it isn’t perfect but most people are comfortable with it. It isn’t the law but the law makers who do much of this. Equally in religion.
But lets not stifle the debate.
“You must, surely, be able to see the fundamental difficulty that someone like me, a majoritarian agnostic, has with any concept of religious law?”
I do see that but I don’t want you to be able to impose solutions without debate. The law has to be comfortable for you as much as for a religous person. That is the balance.
Anyway now things have calmed down I’d still like to hear where your fear comes from. Is it the perception the media give?
shias have experimented more i think sunnis need to institute a paralel tax like they do with khums. would give us more autonomy and stronger institutions.
thanks for your comment in 273 refresh, sorry hadn’t seen that yet. Its a valid question why there is such a big deal made about a woman re-marrying, the Sunnipath link touches on it and it was a central point of contention on the discussions amongst the muslim women’s blogs i’ve been reading.
don puts it very well in 275 i think
One thing I would like to know is why everyone is happy to highlight shortcomings in religous law – fair enough.
But what about secular countries breaking their own international secular laws and noone says anything.
The USA has admitted using torture, the UN says it is a crime and should be porecuted.
Does David Cameron or Michael Give complain about this?
Do they complain about the complicity of European Govts?
Why the lack of complaint?
This merely proves that the law – be it secular or religous can be made to look like an ass when people manipulate the system.
Oh fuck, I think Refresh is probably right. Avi, you could probably join the outer ring of friendship that I think includes the like of Don, Refresh and me. Not to mention that Rumbold chap. Where the heck is he?
Can I say right up front that I am not in the slightest interested in stifling debate? Can you believe that?
Just for your information, I am an old, white guy, and whilst I might come out with the occasional I do not believe it! stuff I just do not like debate on secular or sexist lines. You can, frankly, expect me to stand up against that sort of bullshit.
I have no fear about Sharia law, Avi. Just assume that it must apply to everyone, can you do that?
If it meets that criteria, then no-one, not even me, would have an issue with it. What I think is the issue here is one law for one and another for others. I am not comfortable with that.
So, if we can continue the debate without assuming too much about who the other person is, it’s over to you.
Douglas:
“Do you drive, for instance?”
Actually, no. I’ve never had a driver’s license, which shocks people especially in Southern California. Understandable, since you really have a hand-wringingly difficult time moving about if you have to depend on public transport.
Yeah Desi,
I think you must have said that before, for I seem to recollect it from somewhere. Still, the point stands, does it not? There is no-one in California stopping you, is there? Which is my point about the law, I think. It should be as much about equalty of opportunity as it is about prescription, whether you choose to exercise that right, or not.
Oh, and Avi @ 338,
I am completely against torture. Totally appalled by rendition. And in utter contempt of everything surrounding it. Just so you know.
I also pay my dues to Amnesty International. Have done for what seems like a heck of a long time.
Douglas – Large parts of Shariah to my understanding do not apply to everyone. Other religions can run parts of their laws within Shariah.
Certain laws apply across the board.
The point is hwta is suggested by Dr. Williams isn’t to apply to everyone and not even all Muslims. He is ismply saying have the opition of letting Muslims use religous courts for specific issues within the civil law mainly I think marriage and divorce.
The civil court always has ultimate authority.
The press in their usual bull in a china shop manner went nuts and said he asked for everything which is a lie.
Shariah requires a Muslim Leadership authority and state to put it in place thus in the Muslim world practically you can’t have it all.
Similarly for fighting it has to be called by the leader of the Muslims and there isn’t one. Thus some Muslims say even this can’t happen on a global basis but that is a whole other discussion.
However the press have poisoned this discussion and things will have to calm down before this can be debated.
What shocks me is that the ex-Nazi Youth Leader in Rome gets away with actually implementing a nasty piece of prayer as a religous piece and few of the press even care. No such headlines. In the Catholic Church now it is possible in the UK to pray that Jews are guided to “The Faith” as they are misguided now. Not even a debate on Newsnight!
Yet the AoC makes starts what is afair discussion and he gets ripped to shreds and told he should be sacked.
Douglas – There isn’t one law for everyone. That is sheer nonsense. The law emcompasses society and allows different communities to get on with their lives with a central basis for law.
The Church of England is entitled in Law to have numerous Bishops in The Lords. It doesn’t apply to other religions, the Chief Rabbi having a seat is a token gesture. The rest get none.
So it isn’t one law for everyone.
Rich people can use various bits of special heritage legislation to get round paying death duty.
So it isn’t and has never been one law for one.
The Monarch cannot marry a Catholic and sit on the throne or even be Catholic I think. So one law for Anglicans and one for the rest of us.
etc.
Avi @ 344,
You and I are not on the same planet.
It is an obvious wrong that the C of E should have elected(?) Bishops. Am I supposed to agree with everything else you say when I agree completely with you on that point? I do not want to see Imams put there instead. I want it to be a non secular place.
Look, I am not suggesting that our society is perfect, in fact there are numerous examples of it being less than perfect. I do not want it to adhere to those ideas. I want it to move towards a better society, rather than go retrograde.
You, and your chum, seem to think that bringing religious law in would be a positive development. I do not.
I’ve just done an horrific night shift. Can anyone summarise this monster thread’s comments into a para?!
A sidenote about Sharia. During said night shift I spoke to a apparently rather devout Muslim colleague. We discussed this story. She explained Sharia.
You need 4 witnesses before meting out a punishment, as they can be so severe.
I said what if there are three witnesses, but they’re all senior judges and law lords?
No, it is God’s will – there must be 4.
So the criminal that was watched by 3 witnesses goes free?
God will ensure he is punished for his sins, but we as Muslims believe it is better to be punished in this life on Earth rather than in the afterlife which is far worse.
I said, so there are two people committing EXACTLY the same crime – but one has 4 witnesses, one has 3. The guy with 4 witnesses has his hand chopped off. But the guy with 3 witnesses is punished for all eternity in Hell? Poor guy! If only he had one more witness!
She was a little stumped. I’m not sure if she explained it right.
And still, nobody has directly addressed sonia’s very specific concerns about Shariah.
Come on guys, deal with the Quranic and Ahadith quotes and exegesis she has provided us with.
Then, maybe, we will take you seriously.
The Wandering African = Sonia’s sidekick
GO BACK TO SLEEP
Rohin;
Sorry to hear about your night shift.
Basically they would both be punished in the hereafter unless their was repentance. If the offending crime involved another innocent person, then some form of reparation would have to be made to them. As for being punished here and now, well that has more to do with maintaining law and order, as clearly, a lot of injustice in the world goes unpunished.
saqib
To it seems as if this debate is about specifics; what will be included (Islamic personal law) and what will not (Islamic criminal law).
sonia has highlighted the very real issues with Islamic personal law and provided you with quotes, references etc etc
That you have failed to address these points speaks volumes for your intellectual impotency.
But that’s cool, I knew you were dumb anyway.
Douglas:
‘Look, I am not suggesting that our society is perfect, in fact there are numerous examples of it being less than perfect..
But Douglas, I make a similar point about Saudi, and you accuse me of being the ‘KSA fundamentalist.’ I don’t follow? In any case, you have described yourself as a majoritarian, fair enough. You as the majority will always hold sway, whether in the UK this means that people are able to wear their religious symbols, or in France where the majority decide otherwise. However both sets of citizens abide by the law of the land, working within the system if need be to effect change. I accept this, as do you.
Now it may happen Douglas, that in a majority Muslim state, people may, and I state may, decide to have sharia as the law of the land. In this event, don’t you believe it would be more constructive to engage with a state, even if you consider its policies to be, as you put it repellent, then to isolate it and foment hostilities?
The Wondering African:
At last, you have have stopped holding Sonia’s hand and have come out and made a valid point. Congratulations.
Thanks for admitting that you are unable to deal with the points raised.
Now that you have surrendered, it leaves only sofia and Avi.
Saqib, Great Britain has perfectly good relations with KSA in spite of mutual differences in governance of the two nations. But the “irregularities” and human rights abuses within Saudi Arabia are committed by the state institutions and apparata which are, more often than not, by ritualistic application of the law of the land (public hangings, limb amputations, flogging, stoning etc), which happens to be as close to full-blown sharia as has been implemented in any nation. And yet Britain continues to have good relations with KSA at state level, so your point about opinions and hostilities of the Saudi sharia system held by individuals is redundant really.
The Wandering African:
Please yourself mate, if it helps you feel better. Personally I am not at all that interested in what Sonia has to say, as my discussions on this thread have focused on other areas. I have not even kept up-to-date with her points, which seem focused on showing how Men and Women have different divorce proceedings in Islam…which they do, I don’t deny it, hence I don’t have anything to argue with her about!!! Hence your points about ‘evidences’ is redundant.
I know her views, and have discussed with her before about shariah. Where we will differ is that she will define it as unjust, I wouldn’t, and that is the theoretical discussion which I have mentioned with different posts on this thread.
Not yours specifically, or indeed anyone individual’s regard of the Saudi system, whether adverse or favourable is overridden by the fact that at state level, they get on famously.
Sid:
I wasn’t talking about Saudi in its present form (sorry if I wasn’t clear), for as we know, fundamental problem here is that it is a monarchy, and the people have no real representation. I am talking about a state, where the people have decided through some form of popular involvement, to have a state whose law is based on shariah, what should the attitudes be towards it, for this may well become a reality in 20-30 years time. In fact, the House of Saud, may fall in Saudi, but it may not necessarily lead to the creation of a liberal state.
Sid:
Here is an example of a state where the clergy work with the autocratic state http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7236128.stm.
Women are finally allowed to wear the hijab it seems in universities in a country whose population is 99% Muslim. rather backs up my point about the complexities of power dynamics within the Muslim world.
Sid:
In any case, my point was related to Douglas in a particular context.
I get a 404 with that link, Saqib.
Sorry about that Sid, here it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7236128.stm
Women are finally allowed to wear the hijab it seems in universities in a country whose population is 99% Muslim. rather backs up my point about the complexities of power dynamics within the Muslim world.
Indeed it does show the power dynamics within the Mulsim world. Highlighted by the fact that in muslim-majority countries, muslim clerics issue arbitrary fatwas exhorting muslim women
to wear headscarfs
stopped from driving cars or motorcycles
enter further education
because it is sharia-compliant to do so, in spite of these fatwas being counterintuitive and against cultural and popular norms. And these pseudo-edicts enter public currency and have an insidious way of applying themselves outside of formal, legislative practice, because the mullahs said it is the “Islamic way”.
that last item should read, ‘*stopped* from entering further education’.
Sid:
Oh really Sid, so you are now a revisionist, as the hijab was never really worn by Muslim women before these modern day mad mullah’s began issue fatwas. It may surprise you Sid, but Islam has always had a public dimension, and the secular, elitist states, which are trying to both rewrite and impose their own versions of progress cannot fool people into believing otherwise.
Oh really Sid, so you are now a revisionist,
Don’t shoot the messenger. Its the mullahs who are suggesting in the strongest ways possible (and that’s a polite way of putting it) where women should be and how they should dress. How is this revisionism on *my* part? You mentioned the contradictory dynamics in the muslim world, but you can’t seem to countenance them when the social movements and are contrary to your personal views.
It may surprise you Sid, but Islam has always had a public dimension, and the secular, elitist states, which are trying to both rewrite and impose their own versions of progress cannot fool people into believing otherwise.
But it seems to be bogged down with playing a losing battle with with gender roles in society. And unless shari-exponents like can start a supra-sharia initiative which takes into account these changes, you’ve got a dying legal code on your hands. Made worse by the fact that some extremist mullahs would rather have violence than dialogue.
Andrew Brown on Rowan Williams (Guardian)
Sid,
So as a muslim you see sharia as dying? ever heard of Aceh? I think its just a question of killing it in minds and practice of the bengalis and the brits that you are interested in.
thanks, you give me more credit than i deserve.
Sid:
No worries Sid, I Fugstar is spot on, your deserve it, though of course you are not the leading religious transvestite out there.
Saqib @ 351,
My comments about your comments, and yes, we are going around in a circle here, were informed by what you said here:
Am I the only person that thinks that is perhaps a tad fundamentalist? That state authorised killing for what we in the West see as a minor sin which has few penalties should be put up here as a desireable objective for the UK? Perhaps. But I would argue against it until hell freezes over.
You move, in that quote, from approval of barbarity which you do not even blink at, to disapproval of Saudi on frankly ‘my version of religious intolerance is better than theirs’ Give me a break.
Explain, perhaps with the aid of diagrams, why anyone in their right damn mind would want to re-invent the Middle Ages.
So, yes, you approve of KSA, you just think they aren’t fundamentalist enough.
Is there another interpretation I’m missing? I don’t think so.
Apologies for the use of the word “dying”, probably comes across a bit strong for some. I should have used the more efficaceous ‘atrophied’. Problems happen when people mistake a petrified apricot with a fresh one and expect it to be as luscious and juicy. Dried fruit have some good uses though. Apricot is a good natural cure for constipation. So is reform. I think muslims need to start thinking in these terms rather than strangulating one another.
fugstar: I love the maghrebi-influenced wood carving found in the vernacular architecture of Aceh. Ever heard of gender parity?
sharia is alive in peoples deeds and decision making aparati. yes dying was a crap word to use. yes there is a hole. into which secularism was never going to fit.
i agree on the supercharging of islamic disciplines but smell bad fish in the much talked up ‘reform’ speak. its more sociological, as institutions and people get more wealthy and less westoxified we’ll see better knowledge cultures.
Sid:
Yes, I might have guessed your reliance on nobodies like Ali Eteraz, and his rather amateur attempts at revisionism.
Fugstar @ 372,
So, what is your solution? To be honest with you, I’d assume Islam will lose, in the UK at least, half of it’s disciples, more or less, if it doesn’t reform it’s prejudices against women. And give up on gloryfying ridiculous practices like stoning folk. This better knowledge culture of which you speak? Where is it likely to lead?
Saqib @ 373,
Lets try for honesty here. There is absolutely nothing professional about any shill for a theocratic state. Put your case honestly, make your arguement, do not diminish those that disagree with you as somehow lesser beings.
dougy baby,
i dont thing you are part of the issue, the working out, the discussion or the answer. neither is Britain.
are you thick or just evil?
saqib,
dont dis ali ‘HE@S A MATE’ lol.
Douglas:
‘Am I the only person that thinks that is perhaps a tad fundamentalist? That state authorised killing for what we in the West see as a minor sin which has few penalties should be put up here as a desireable objective for the UK?’
Firstly, I never advocated ’state authored killing’ as you put it in Britain. In fact the only example of this which I mentioned was of a man being executed for killing his wife, a crime which I am sure you would agree is not minor, hence I am not sure what you quite meant here.
‘You move, in that quote, from approval of barbarity which you do not even blink at, to disapproval of Saudi on frankly ‘my version of religious intolerance is better than theirs’ Give me a break.’
Not necessarily Douglas, what i said was…
‘Moreover, what is reported in the media, is often the negative points, whilst ignoring the very good things their.’
Now I didn’t give many examples, for sake of brevity. However there good examples in that society, crime is relatively low, standard of living is not bad either, and the general environment, according to some is more family friendly. The government even supports its citizens in purchasing property through interest free loans…now wouldn’t it be great for first time buyers under Mr Brown’s government to have this facility.
Of course their are negatives, however these are well rehearsed. I sense it is your thorough dislike of a society based on religious law which has made you not appreciate my points on this matter.
‘Explain, perhaps with the aid of diagrams, why anyone in their right damn mind would want to re-invent the Middle Ages.’ So, yes, you approve of KSA, you just think they aren’t fundamentalist enough.’
Well Douglas, I don’t accept your definition of ‘middle ages’, for it seems you are applying the rather hopeless situation of European society in this period to all of the world, particularly the Islamic world. In any case, even if their are aspects which appear medieval, is that sufficient reason to dispense with them?
For example, Muslims did have concepts of tolerance during this era, and women did have rights of inheritance, marriage and divorce, which was very against the norm should they have dispensed with this in the early 19th century, as in ‘progressive Europe’ these rights were forthcoming?
It seems you are saying that the only political order that is acceptable in the world today is a secular liberal democratic one. However you have to appreciate Douglas that different societies have to develop and evolve according to their own traditions and political institutions. Now any developments have to take place within this tradition, so that the whole of society moves together.
Not everyone considers living in a society governed by religious laws to be undesirable. On the contrary a believer would have his reasons for wanting this, a non-believer would have his for wanting otherwise.
Douglas:
‘Saqib @ 373,
Lets try for honesty here. There is absolutely nothing professional about any shill for a theocratic state. Put your case honestly, make your argument, do not diminish those that disagree with you as somehow lesser beings.’
I am only replying in this manner with old Sid as this has been the nature of our discourse on this thread…read post 283 to see what I mean.
fugstar,
I am neither thick nor evil. Are you, perhaps, pissed?
I asked you a civilised question and I get that as a reply? Strange as it may seem, it is folk like me that would have to endorse your views for them to have the slightest chance of passing into law. So fuggy baby, I am most certainly part of the issue, part of the discussion and part of the answer. Though, given your incivil cheek, my answer is unlikely to be the one you want to hear.
I did love this bit, right enough:
Fundamentalists falling out with each other, who’d have believed it?
Fugster:
Are you being ironic?
Actually I’ve been reading some stuff by Hashim Kamali regarding jurisprudence. There’s alot of uniformity with regards to the use of the sources of law, differences come with interpretations and application. Fascinating stuff.
Eteraz is suggesting a direction not a ‘hole-filler’ (unfortunate choice of metaphor by fugstar) or solution. There is a massive difference. And even then, all he’s saying that Islam has the lost the will to reform itself. That there is no scholar that exists who can take on the
As a secularist, I don’t think Eteraz’s suggestions even count. Because I don’t think Islamist politics offers an entire political ideology for creating stable wealthy countries. I don’t think Islam, on its own terms, is equipped to contribute favourably to the democratic struggle of ordinary people in developing muslim-majority countries. History has so far brought us either dynastic royalty or self-appointed committee structures which are accountable only to God. Works in heaven I’m sure, but not here on earth in the 21st century.
Eteraz thinks you can but not in its present form. I’d go further and say you can’t build stable wealthy countries, with religion-parity and gender-parity, on the basis of Islam alone. You have to build it into democracy. So muslims have to accede sharia to civil law. The rest is gravy.
I thought Saqib would love Eteraz, but he’s too busy knocking none-conservatives. If he can’t agree my mate Eteraz, he certainly won’t be agreeing with me.
yes, a little humour. i was doing an impressio of the brown inbred blog habit of covering the arse of fellow geeks. *bows* tbh im not really interested in law.
dougy baby,
i think youve got my interst a articular knowledge culture in the world mistaken for whatever it is you think this issue is about. promoting yourself into a space you arent relevant to. unless you have “im a hero, ill come save you” thing for muslim women.
hmmm or maybe you are just nosey. its important to resist the cultural urge to dominate, imperialise, develop and study other people and pollute.
Fugtstar:
Well, Douglas thought that us’ fundamentalists’ had fallen out…i am sure we can handle some ikhtilaf.
Saqib,
That was a bloody good response, so it was.
Yup, I do think that Western European Liberal Democracy is probably the best show in town. And I tend to think that it has only got that status in, what, the last twenty years or so. Which is not to deny the history behind it, it is simply to say that mistakes, big ones, were made in the evolutionary process.
You were quite right to pull me up about the wife killing. That is obviously unacceptable in any jurisdiction. Though the penalty would differ, depending where you live. Personally, I am fairly happy with the UK’s judicial system, and particularily the punishments’ it meets out. You may think they are not severe enough. If so, make your case to everyone that shares this country with you. I’d expect that you’d find, sadly, considerable support, for your notions.
I am not about to pick apart KSA. I have never been there, and my limited experiences of it do suggest that it is not quite as autocratic as some would believe. Yet, we are, are we not, still talking about a regieme that enables public execution alongside interest free loans? You may consider that to be a fair trade off, I do not.
It is actually fair comment, I think, to compare much of the Muslim world, to the Middle Ages, in the sense that they have not transitioned from an Abrahamic idea of justice to a more ‘modern’ one. And I am not in favour of importing that sort of stuff into the UK.
Fugstar @ 382,
All I’ve had from you is ad hominems, Your complete inability to answer a question doesn’t say much for your debating style. Which knowledge culture? What knowledge culture? I am commenting on how I think things might develop, I do not wear my underpants on the outside of my trousers.
Sid:
Actually Ali is a self-confessed secular humanist. He doesn’t talk about Islamist politics, in fact, if you read his other writings he is thoroughly anti-islamist, perhaps even more then you.
My objections to Ali are the ways in which misapplies principles of jurisprudence to arrive at a pre-defined conclusion. This actually clouds, rather then enhances the debate. I haven’t actually read all of this series I must confess, hence will have a thorough read later.
I think, however, if you read more of his writings, you will will find him to be a more than comfortable bedfellow.
In the name of social cohesion I think it is important to adopt the Code Napoleon for all French citizens living in the UK…
Matthew Parris is interesting on this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3337984.ece
Douglas:
Actually my attitude to corporal punishment in Britain is ambivalent. Whilst I confess that my natural inclination is to be part of the ‘hang em’ brigade, when all things are considered, there are some serious issues with regards to socio-economic deprivation, peer-pressure/attractions of gang culture (causes of crime) which make a clear cut application of corporal punishment to serious crimes difficult. We need to have a clearer demarcation of boundaries before enacting such actions. If that were the case, I wouldn’t have objections to corporal punishment as a deterrent however.
Again, I don’t wish to see Shariah transplanted into Britain through stealth, for it is a holistic system predicated upon belief in the hereafter, and a fuller conception of what constitutes a good, moral society towards which we strive. To compartmentalize it you lose its coherency, and actually come up with poor results.
In this regard Douglas, you may be surprised to learn that I do believe that in Britain the state should deny the choice to a women to have an abortion, for it is a matter of belief and personal autonomy. People who are against this usually have motivations based on religion, or some other conservative beliefs which they eek to promote insidiously.
I even think the idea of 24 drinking makes sense in tackling our crime wretched city centers on Friday and Saturday nights, for not government policy can alter drinking habits for people to consume less, not even raising prices.
And I even feel that the arguments for legalising prostitution make sense, for it would a) protect the young ladies engaged in this ‘profession’(as in the case of the Ipswich nutter) and b) contain the ensuing criminality on the streets by containing the problem through regulation.
This is because the whole context is different, and the public benefit(if there is such a thing in liberal society) would probably be best served according to utilitarian notions. However that does not mean I would morally condone such things, however that is my personal prerogative. What I would say is that all these issues of policy are not solutions, rather damage limitation exercises…the solution lies deeper than mere politics, though it is a component.
Dr Williams should resign. I’m sure he’s a wonderful (yet seriously misguided) man but he’s not suited to be Archbishop. He should be discussing theology at university or something.
Will he quit? Place your bets!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7236849.stm
Avi #335:
“Secular Law in the USA allows torture, creates war, lies for supremacy.”
Er… no. Torture is in fact against both US and international law (Congress ratified the CAT in 1994); the Bush administration’s lies are not sanctioned by “secular law” and in fact, if we American citizens had balls en masse, we would have impeached all their asses a long time ago; and as for “lies for supremacy,” this sounds really pretty, but says nothing.
Laws themselves can be pretty flawed themselves and perpetuate inequalities, double standards, etc. However, secular laws– when they are just– are preferable to any religion based model.
I know PP’s readership is not indicative of larger society, but is it just me or does it seem like the majority of the nearly 400 comments here are by male commentators? Why is it that male commentators get their panties up in a bunch about hypothetical situations (which are probably never going to take root) in which women’s rights are the subject of discussion?
Not that I don’t think it’s great that dudes care about women’s rights, I just think it’s interesting to see such chest-puffing about some ludicrous proposition by a miniscule slice of the Brasian population and one Archbishop.
Toodooloo.
Desi Italiana:
Mind you, the Americans find alternative ways to get around things, look at Guantanamo. On that note, what is the general attitude their towards Guantanamo, particular the political Left and Right?
Hey, about a post on the rights of women who are trafficked into the UK? Real situation, and real cause for indignation.
Saqib:
“Mind you, the Americans find alternative ways to get around things, look at Guantanamo.”
Absolutely true. And if we were to talk about evil laws, look at the Patriot Act, the suspension of habeus
corpus, military tribunals which try civilians, etc. Which is why I said that there ARE instances in which laws/directives are unjust themselves.
“what is the general attitude their towards Guantanamo, particular the political Left and Right?”
For the left, it’s a no-no. There are some on the Right who want to be seen as actually rational and law abiding; but when push comes to shove, very little happens:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/30/the_john_mccain_charade/
I know PP’s readership is not indicative of larger society, but is it just me or does it seem like the majority of the nearly 400 comments here are by male commentators? Why is it that male commentators get their panties up in a bunch about hypothetical situations (which are probably never going to take root) in which women’s rights are the subject of discussion?
Our penises, of course.
Charlie Brown:
Well it’s clear which ‘head’ you were using whilst writing this piece!
Actually its mediocre.
Douglas – the point I replied to in was you comment about one law for all. I highlighted this isn’t true.
I don’t have an issue with the Bishops being there and I am sure they do a good job. But this one law for all is unworkable because people are on different levels.
One law for all is a general principle and indeed here there is one law for all in most cases. We all obey for example the same driving laws apart from the super rich.
We have access to the judicial system.
So in the vast majority of cases yes there is one law for all. But in some situations then no.
But this debate itself has been won by the right wing media with the hysteria they generated and not what the Archbishop said. The media have lied beyond belief and what shocks me is the country didn’t pick up on it which in itself in scary.
What he said was that certain minor aspects of shariah law should be considered for civil law. The press and your good self have portrayed this as having everythign is shariah law.
I have news for you mate there is a massive difference between what he said and what is being debated.
The law is there to be adjusted and you still haven’t said what is wrong with people of Muslim faith being able to marry and divorce using Islamic Law if they freely choose to do so?
That is all he said and it wasn’t for the penal laws of Shariah which is what is being debated. So that is a distortion.
This is an important debate and simply put the media is generating hysteria as it did when the education bill was put forth and they whipped up a storm about Muslim Schools.
At the moment anything with the word Muslim in will get the media going to put forth lies and damn lies.
It isn’t what he said and frankly it is you who is on a different planet when you just don’t get what he said.
Most Muslims would agree with you as would Jews, Chrisistians, Sikhs, Hindus, Bhuddists etc that they are happy with the laws in the country as a whole. But where things can be adjusted to help parts of society is there really anything wrong with that?
That is the central question and despite the hysteria in fact most people can’t argue against the point made.
If you saw Sky News yesterday their correspondant at Lambeth Palace went round for a few hours asking people what thye thought of what the Archbishop said, he said most people were against it. When he asked whether they had read the speech and what they were actually against most people said they didn’t know. Sky News from the Murdoch Empire isn’t noted for being Muslim freindly and even they said that most people didn’t actually know anything about Shariah Law, about what was said and what was proposed or even what the speech said.
Thus the opinion is being formed by following the lies of the media – my words not theirs.
What is going on is sheer madness over a suggestion for discussion and debate.
It is hysteria generated by a media that has chosen a new bogeyman and is hammering that bogeyman all the time. That isn’t creating a cohesive society.
It is a simple debate on a simple point. Should the law have a minor adjustment to allow some aspects of people’s religous belief to be helped by civil law.
If society is civil then yes it should.
Although I don’t like agreeing with Sunny I have to say that in this instance I do agree that the debate is too early.
But another question which arises out of this is why can’t a senior figure from the Church raise social issues without the barrage of hate he has seen? Dr. Williams did what he thought was right for wider society and no matter what the rights and wrongs of his suggestions what he has had to go through is nothing short of disgusting. Surely senior political and religous figures should be able to remind society occassionaly that they need to look at something.
This entire debate in the media is based upon a lie and we instead should be angry at the media for doing this and instead are letting them get away with it.
It is true that the media have dumbed down people’s capacity to comprehend what is being said.
I love the fact that (supportive) commentators keep saying that he was only referring to a “limited” area of the law – marriage, divorce, finances, inheritance and custody.
What’s left?
cjcjc – what is left is a massive area. Tell me are the laws of this land just limited to marriage, divorce, finances, inheritance and custody?
No they are not. Similary in religous laws they have large other areas. SO yes there is a lot left. So yes it is a limited area.
Amongst the areas left are financial laws, trading laws, community laws, state laws etc.
See what he said is actually very limited.
Is that hard to grasp if you just thought about it?
cjcjc – also it isn’t about support or not people are simply saying that is is valid to have the debate.
Simply put it is a lie to say aspects of religous code are not in law as they are. It is a lie to say there is one rule for all as there isn’t because the Govt legislates for different communities. Burial rights are a prime example as people have different burial customs.
So it is already there.
The Govt changed the law to allow Shariah Compliant Finance – I mean for crying out loud even Govt Ministers called it Shariah Finance cause it would bring in money so to say that Shariah isn’t part of the law is nonsense.
It is a bit like Lord Carey saying is isn’t inevitable – The Lord clearly was sleeping when that bill went through then.
No – but those are the the most common (and intimate)areas of law which *everybody* has to deal with.
I have no idea what you mean by “state” or “community” laws.
“Don’t worry, it’s only to do with family stuff ” is not a terribly reassuring message is it?!
“Family stuff” is the most important part of life!
Why would everyone have to deal with them when it will apply only to people who choose to use it?
Does Shariah Complaint Finance apply to everyone or those that choose to use it?
Finance is an important part of life and this type of finance went through the law for those that wish to use it.
Why can’t you understand that it only applies to those wanting to use it not everyone and not even all Muslims.
It is about giving people a choice of how they settle their intimate affairs.
It isn’t an imposition on everyone as is being implied.
It is opt-in not all-in.
“Why can’t you understand that it only applies to those wanting to use it not everyone and not even all Muslims.”
The risk of coercion is too great.
The risk of coercion is too great.
There are those who hold that irrational fear as demonstrated by comment #405, and there are others, such as myself, who reject sharia because we do not want civil law being relegated by religious law, in principle.
The second stance is well articulaed by the Matthew Parris article, without falling into the trap of exponding these sentimental, fear-based arguments. Although, the backlash is going to be based on a tabloid-led fear-mongering freakshow rather than based on principled arguments.
cjcjc – “The risk of coercion is too great”
At last it comes out. So hiding behind the liberal facade of freedom is in fact you want to tell everyone what they can do and then say “Go Forth for you are free.” but only within the limits you set so not totally free.
Look as I said when there is a buck to me made then the Govt lets Shariah onto the books. Otherwise it is mad hysteria.
Have you been coerced to use Shariah Finance – shit no you can use both. Same applies here.
The arguments are simply based on hysteria that we may be coerced which is not possible as it will all be within civil law which allows people the freedom to choose.
As it is all that has been said is the matter should be debated and you won’t let that happen without stiking irational fear into people. The media are all at it and indeed it is the Muslims who are facing more scrutiny and backlash Probably not what the Archbishop intended but it serves as a basis for what is coming.
Simply put minorities are being portrayed as different, not just Muslims but now all of them from this notion of a yet undefined Britishness.
When it was those very monorities that helped Britain win this freedom. But Britian loves to say Thank you to America but not to the Commonwealth.
This is simply a product of Blair and his lies and distortions towards the outlook on the world. The same crap was said about going into Europe.
Sharia courts have already been operating in multiple locations across the UK for over 25 years, and have been dealing with a huge number of enquiries and thousands of actual cases during that time.
Facts & figures included in a new Times Online article.
I agree with Sid, unsurprisingly.
‘It is about giving people a choice of how they settle their intimate affairs.’
That choice exists, for everybody, as long as it does not conflict with the law of the land. One particular group should not be privileged simply because their principles are based on religion rather than politics or philosophy.
At the moment the Church of England still retains some anomalous privileges, which can no longer be realistically defended even by the church, partly because their is no argument they are comfortable with making against the ‘level playing field’ issue.
When the blasphemy laws were clearly and inexorably on the way out, Williams did not attempt to retain them but rather proposed an even more draconian system by which the law would take action against any words which offended any religion, even inadvertantly. He didn’t specify the details, because the point was to have the principle accepted; that religion should be legally protected from words it did not like.
And now he is proposing that another principle be accepted; that religions should be excempt from laws to which they do not ‘relate’.
Of course many muslims apply sharia to their own lives. I would never claim expertise in matters islamic, but even I was surpised at how many people seemed to be unaware of that. Or, in parts of the media, purported to be shocked at the discovery.
But it may not conflict with the law of the land. Surely that is not in dispute?
If anyone, of any religion or none, feels that the law prevents them from abiding by priciples which are important to them, then make a specific case for a specific law to be modified, but that case cannot be based on revealed divine will, or on feeling a generalised disconnect from the law as it stands. It must be based on clearly demonstrating that the proposed change is for the general benefit and placed no-one under an unjust burden.
Sharia banking is indeed a case in point. The proposal was made, it was duly examined in great detail and it was concluded that it provided practical benefits and placed no-one under an unjust burden. So it passed into legislation with no fuss that I am aware of.
This is very different to what Williams is proposing, which is essentially that religious belief should be recognised as allowing one to opt in or out of competing legal systems in a market-place of laws.
Laws must be argued as good or bad, wise or foolish, just or unjust, on their merits as laws, not on their compatability with a particular revelation of the will of god, as interpreted by man.
As far back as 1949, in a speech on freedom under the law, Lord Denning said: “The offence of blasphemy is now a dead letter”. What a fine man.
“Have you been coerced to use Shariah Finance – shit no you can use both. Same applies here.”
Yeah. I am a relatively well-off, well-educated, English-speaking, “middle class” man.
Are you really saying that less advantaged women are not vulnerable to coercion?
If so, you are lying – if only to yourself.
This article appealed to me on a number of levels:
‘A noble, reckless rebellion
There is good reason to have a debate about sharia law in Britain. But Rowan Williams need not have begun it like this’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/09/religion.politics
Avi Cohen at 399.
Did I argue, anywhere, that I thought the Bishop had it right? No, I didn’t.
You say this:
Frankly, you might not have an issue with what that troublesome priest chooses to spout, but I do! And I’ve have an equal issue with any other religions stepping into the hole.
Contrary to what you say, and frankly what a lot of thick folk seem to want to say, an equitable law, which does not favour one belief over an other, is probably the right law.
Several folk on here have suggested that I should shut up, because they want to have a free hand in expressing their religious convictions, as though they were truth.
Well, they can stick it where the sun don’t shine.
Or, re para four, what a lot of sensible folk seem to want to say, etc, etc.
Saqib,
Can I suggest, without a hint of irony, that you are so relaxed about what Sharia Law actually has in store, that it is frankly unbelievable?
Your version says quite a few things that seem to contradict the stricter form found elsewhere.
You are, on balance, against the death penalty. Whoop de doo, you have probably figured out that death is probably a limiting case on appeal.
You think that prostitution should be legalised, perhaps you are right, it certainly shouldn’t be something old men get their knickers in a twist over.
Saquib, as always, you come out as the liberal you actually are, rather than the Muslim you have always wanted to be.
Or, perhaps there ought to be no contradiction. Frankly, other posters are not as sensible as you..
Douglas – Frankly it isn’t worth the effort debating with you anymore. You don’t get it.
You never got it and never will.
You view is that only what you say is correct and noone from any religion can have a right to do anyting.
Your failure to comprehend that various laws to help various religions have already been brought in makes your argiment nonsense.
If the law is to be equitable as you put it then people have a right to want to use either civil or religous. You are dictating that it only be what you want civil.
You keep shifting the goalposts like some dodgy Blairite Minister. It isn’t about favour of one religous belief over another. It is about allowing people of a religous belief to practise what thye believe within the framework of the law.
If you practise what you believe did you:
A) Complain about the introduction of Shariah Finance?
B) Go complain now to your MP and demand it is removed because that favours Islamic Finance over other religions but hey it makes money so noone says anything.
C) Maybe ask the rightwing rags that agree with you why they didn’t say jack when this was introduced and why they lie to their readers that Shariah isn’t here.
Also in your tiny world sensible folk are those that agree with only you.
You won’t answer points but keep shifting ground on ideas of sheer paranoia and falsehoods to try and prove your argument. This in an intellectually bankrupt approach.
Like it or not parts of Shariah are already on the law books. Like it or not there isn’t one law for all. Like it or not there are vast numbers of religous people in the UK who don’t adhere to civil law alone and they are not just Muslim. The law needs to accomodate and protect them otherwise the law is an ass and in danger of drifting away from people’s lives.
This dictatorial approach of secularists and of treating religous folks as if they had the plague is disgusting.
We’ve seen the outright racism of some secularists in Europe and frankly don’t need to see the same nonsense here.
The debate is just that a debate and it is for the people to decide with good information and not the falsehoods people like you are putting forth.
Saqib – It is nice that the secularist Judge Douglas Clark has declared you a liberal and not a Muslim. You must be so happy.
Apparently the respected Judge is saying who is and isn’t a sensible poster.
Dearie me Avi,
I thought I had already replied to your nonsense at 116. Apparently not.
It is pretty plain to me that the dictatorial approach, which happens to include your outright belief that religious ideas – those that you happen to hold today – should be incorporated into law, whether they offend half of your own so called religious community or not, should hold sway over a secular decision making process, is the ridiculous sort of nonsense that any sane human being should tell you to shove where the sun don’t shine. It says a lot about what a complete utter idiot you are.
Still and all, I’d expect no less from a fundamentalist idiot.
Saqib, OTOH, seems to make a case. Which is more interesting than your bullshit.
Would a fundamentalist like your good self agree with Saqib about permitting prostitution? Try 389, why don’t you?
You will never get majority agreement to the superiority of religious law over secular law. That went out with the Victorians. And, as I have said before, you are quite likely to lose large swathes of your own congregation whilst you pursue this bankrupt and stupid idea. As in bankrupt and stupid.
So say I, who, is in fact, quite a sensible poster. Unlike a muslim posting under a jewish moniker. What is that about, exactly?
Douglas – indeed you are a prize prat who spreads falsehoods about what people say to emotionally blackmail people to your point of view.
Are you fucking stupid or what? Do you have problems understanding basic English?
I said the issue should be debated; you are simply spreading lies and hysteria. Do you work for the Sun?
For fuck sake why are you so fucking scared of having the dabte? Is it because you are unable to put together an argument.
Can you not read basic English that the laww will be only for those that choose to use it. Is that hard to comprehend?
If they don’t want it they don’t have to use it. Simple.
If you cared about women as much as you claim then you would know that many women who follow various religions are unable to marry again because old farts like you decided that they can’t come into the fold of the law and get a religous divorce. In your tiny world if you bothered to read the press then you’d see that significant numbers of women use such courts ourside the protection of the law.
I am simply saying you senile prat that we need to help them and offer them protection which old farts like you don’t want to do because it is out side of your dictatorship.
How the fuck do you suggest a women who follows religion gets a divorce? It is difficult and lengthy because of people like you who say we want one law. The law is for everyone and explain then you fecin idiot why there is Shariah Finance if it is one law? Explain that then?
Oh and Avi,
What makes you think that I have any objection whatsoever to Sharia finance? All you have to do is persuade everyone that it is a good idea and it will be accepted universally. Which is the whole point, really. Perhaps only some folk will accept it. It is what we call the market place.
I have already pointed out I have actually no objection, in principle, to another form of judicial law. What you have to do, and what the ridiculous ABC has to do, is persuade everyone that it is in their best interests. Ranting don’t do it mate.
Also Douglas – you keep going on and on and on about the superiority of religous law – show me where I said that or apologise for that falsehood?
Noone is saying that religous law should be superior and because you cannot comprehend anything and have managed to save this little nutshel;l in your copy & paste you keep using it.
The law would be part of the civil law like the Shariah Finance is. You problem is that you cannot understand or make sense or what is happening so just keep pasting the same drivel again.
That isn’t sensible posting. The law is to help people – all people.
Tell me Douglas why if there is one law then Sikhs are able to ride motorcyles without a helmet? Where the feck is your one law then? I can’t ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That is an example of the law helping people which farts like you don’t want to do. Does that law hurt you? Hell no.
But you with your approach are making people’s lives an utter misery whilst they go through painful episodes in their lives because you can’t understand what people are saying.
Try helping people for a change instead of dicating to them. Muslim women would not be considered divorced even if the divorce is issued by a civil court. So how do they remarry? No other Muslim would marry them in this state you tell me how they do it within your one law for all? They can’t can they?
So you are not being sensible as the sensible approach would be to help them but you want to leave them in the state they are because you don’t care about them because they follow a religion.
That shows you for what you are.
Douglas – you still don’t understand do you. Bless must be the years going on.
It isn’t another form of law – it is a proposal – just a proposal for an addition to UK Law. That the religous part be permitted where people want it. That is all. You can divorce your way and they can divorce your way and their way together. That’s it.
No obligation to anyone. Use it if you want.
But no you started going on and on about hand chopping etc. That isn’t what is being suggested.
So listen all it is is to make the lives of people who follow religion that bit easier during emmotional times.
Three Muslim Women – Woman A and Woman B and Woman C.
Woman A needs a divorce doesn’t fancy the idea of a religous court so can use a civil court.
Woman B needs a divorce wants to use a religous court, goes to civil court which then sends part of her divorce to a religous court. Religous court issues decision and it goes back to civil court to be ratified.
Woman C needs a divorce wants to use religous court,
goes to civil court which then sends part of her divorce to a religous court. Religous court issues decision and Woman C is unhappy so case goes back to civil court and civil court issues ruling based on civil law.
How is that hurting you Douglas – Explain?
“What you have to do, and what the ridiculous ABC has to do, is persuade everyone that it is in their best interests.”
That is what he started before the media and people liek you started spreading falsehoods about what was suggested. How can a debate happen with people like you effectively torpedoing it with their false allegations about what is proposed?
The Media has generated hysteria not debate. You generated hysteria not debate.
All he said was lets have a discussion but oh no you don’t like discussion you want to dictate your way or no way.
The law is flexible enough and sensible enough to allow people to go through some processes.
If market forces as you put it can dictate parts of Shariah going on then why wasn’t it then said that it is all of Shariah when there was money to be made. Why no hysteria then? Why not?
Why the lies, falsehoods etc now? It is because people like to make money but screw helping people.
I hope you are proud of yourself for the way that you have effectively torpedo’ed the debate. Apply for a job at The Sun, Dialy Mail or Fox News you’d ne anatural there.
Avi @ whatever19,
Have the debate. Discuss it. Expect to lose.
Really? So, I’m the old fart for thinking women should be treated equitably. Oh, noes, you are so subtle. If they cannot get a divorce within their religion, on the terms and conditions of that religion, then in my ‘tiny world’ they should just put up with it?
Don’t think so.
If the state has any meaning whatsoever, and sometimes I doubt it too, it ought to be about holding the ring between folk with different degrees of power and influence. Not conceeding to the male dominance that is Avi Cohen.
Two points. If I had senility on my side, then it would be an excuse. You, sir, on the other hand have none whatsoever. Secondly, I happen to think that secular law does actually do a fairly good job of looking after women in a divorce situation.
Oh, and dammit, thirdly, what I have said consistently on here, this thread and elsewhere, is that persuasion is the way to go. If you’ve ever met a dictator who’s main theme was persuasion then bugger me senseless.
Y’know, democracy and that sort of stuff. It does not do to just rant and rave.
Are you perhaps under the misapprehension that no-one else reads what we say to each other?
Douglas – if democracy is the way to go then why are you railroading the debate with discussion about the Shariah penal code?
Was that even brought up? No you do it to scare people and emotionally blackmail them to your point of view.
I personally don’t care where a woman gets a divorce. Civil court is fine by me and I have said that. You are again twisting my words. I have said to you that some women of a religous persuation want a religous divorec as well and I think the law should allow them to try and do that within the law.
It isn’t about male dominance – if they thought that then why haven’t you persuaded those women to forgo their religion? Why do they carry on with their religion?
So you think all these women are stupid that they don’t realise they may get less but hey they still want to go through with it. So explain that?
Today in terms of religion more women than men practise religion.
The problem is that people like you and the media whenever there is some discussion like this you take it to the extreme and mention things which are not even on the agenda. If you are so secure in your position then why do you need to do that. You won’t address those issues about why you spread fear and falsehoods in people to try and get your way?
Tell me then if the woman wants to go down the religous road and you won’t let her what can she do? Oh yeah go to backstreet courts and try and work it that way. Yeah really love helping women don’t you.
Surely society has progressed from this and is secureenough to accomodate some of these things? If it isn’t then democracy itself is indeed weak if it can’t help people in as many situations as possible.
This isn’t as you keep implying about the superiority of one religion over another, or the superiority of religous versus secular law. It is about helping people in limited situations where secular and religous law can coexist.
If the women choose to take less but want to follow this route then what harm is that to you?
Even if the debate is lost it is a win for the country. Why because the country had the debate rather than hiding away from scaremongers like you.
Democracy is about people being able to express their opinions and you won’t tolerate people of religion being able to and hence resort to scaremongering, falsehoods and distortion of what people say thus making your arguments morally bankrupt.
You called Saib a Fundementalist a short time back and now because he said two things you like suddenly he is reasonable.
Why can’t you let people have the debate without any of your fear and scaremongering coming into play. Discuss the facts and only the facts – then let the people decide.
If women get less – fair point that they do. But they decide they want this then if you want to stop them what does that make you?
Avi Cohen,
I have said, miles back on this thread, that I have no objection whatsoever to religious arbitration. That gives it the status of a mutually agreeable settlement. What I have said, pretty well consistently for a senile old twit, is that where either party is not happy with that they ought to have the right to go to secular law.
There are, to most of us, rules or laws that the Godly, such as your good self, take as a given, which have no secular basis whatsoever. No pork, no shellfish, etc, etc. These are frankly religiously imposed constraints beyond the general constraints that society, at large, applies, for instance not eating people.
Avi, you are running a wedge arguement here. And I think you know it.
“If women get less – fair point that they do. But they decide they want this then if you want to stop them what does that make you?”
Yeah, they “want” to be treated like dirt.
Right.
Do you ever listen to yourself?
Fortunately, the more light that is shone upon what is already happening, the less likely it is anything along these lines will happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html
“We don’t need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises. Last month, a plain, unsensationalist documentary called Divorce: Sharia Style looked at the judgements they hand down.
If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, “I divorce you” three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved “unreasonably” – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.
Irum Shazad, a 26-year-old British woman, travels from her battered women’s refuge to a sharia court in East London. She explains that her husband was so abusive she slashed her wrists with a carving knife. The court tells her this was a sin, making her as bad as him. They tell her to go back to her husband. (They grant a divorce half a year later, after a dozen more “last chances” for him to abuse her.)
Then we meet Nasirin Iqbal, a 27-year-old Pakistani woman who was shipped to Britain five years ago to marry. Her husband, Imran, has kept her isolated, and she does not speak a word of English. “I came here thinking he’d treat me well,” she says. “But he keeps hurting me. He brought me here to use me. I’m not an object…. Do I not have a heart?… He tells me I’m stuck with him, and under Islam he can treat me however he wants. ‘I am a man, I can treat you how I want’.”
We see how Imran torments her, announcing, “You are a reject. I didn’t want to marry you.” He takes a second wife in Pakistan, and texts her all day in front of Nasirin declaring his love. The sharia court issues a fatwa saying the marriage stands. She doesn’t seem to know this isn’t a court of law. “I can’t ignore what they say,” she cries. “You have to go with what they say.”
“We don’t need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises. Last month, a plain, unsensationalist documentary called Divorce: Sharia Style looked at the judgements they hand down.
If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, “I divorce you” three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved “unreasonably” – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.
Irum Shazad, a 26-year-old British woman, travels from her battered women’s refuge to a sharia court in East London. She explains that her husband was so abusive she slashed her wrists with a carving knife. The court tells her this was a sin, making her as bad as him. They tell her to go back to her husband. (They grant a divorce half a year later, after a dozen more “last chances” for him to abuse her.)
Then we meet Nasirin Iqbal, a 27-year-old Pakistani woman who was shipped to Britain five years ago to marry. Her husband, Imran, has kept her isolated, and she does not speak a word of English. “I came here thinking he’d treat me well,” she says. “But he keeps hurting me. He brought me here to use me. I’m not an object…. Do I not have a heart?… He tells me I’m stuck with him, and under Islam he can treat me however he wants. ‘I am a man, I can treat you how I want’.”
We see how Imran torments her, announcing, “You are a reject. I didn’t want to marry you.” He takes a second wife in Pakistan, and texts her all day in front of Nasirin declaring his love. The sharia court issues a fatwa saying the marriage stands. She doesn’t seem to know this isn’t a court of law. “I can’t ignore what they say,” she cries. “You have to go with what they say.”
Douglas – with respect I said at the start that the law can be accomodated to allow the caes to go to the religous courts if and only if both parties agree. Even if one party disagrees with the outcome then the civil court decides.
You said no and came up with various scare stories about things which were not even being discussed. As Refresh pointed out to you we were fairly close in our opinion. What is annoying me is you are derailing the debate.
I have no issue what so ever with the civil courts and as I said most people of a religous nature have no issue. All that is being said is this should be debated.
With respect you are twisting what you say and have been all along to include other areas of religous law to suit you.
Basically we agree this should be discussed and agreed. I frankly don’t care if it doesn’t go onto the law book but I’d like a reasoned debate so we can determine what Shariah Law is and not via scare stories and see if the law can help.
cjcjc – which proves what I said that such courts should be brought under legal control so women can get the help they need. In your way they’d keep going to these dodgy backstreet people who know little themselves. If if was under control then these women could be helped. In your way this backstreet practise just carries on. So thank you for helping me prove what I am saying – I know you didn’t intend that but hey thanks.
Avi,
Sharia, if it is anything at all, is a legal code. Whilst I would like to agree with Saqib about the ‘pick and mix’ approach, that is frankly not what we are being sold here. We are being sold the whole damn thing.
It is probably too easy an arguement for you to limit the debate to marriage and divorce. I have already said that if two religious people want to divorce under Sharia law, then I have no issue with that. As long as they are both of equal authority, and have recourse to civil law.
What about crime though? On the obviously slippery slope, you and young whippersnappers like you, would want to see that next.
Saqib and I go back a bit. I was, frankly astonished at his early posts, that was not the chap I knew before. I have a lot of respect for his intellect, I simply didn’t see where he was coming from on this thread. So, there you go.
Jesus Avi,
If you are talking about civil matters @ 428, then you and I have no disagreement. That is how civil society works, outwith the frigging law. If you and I disagree about something we have obvious recourse to the courts, though it would be a damn sight more sensible that we talked out our differences. Which is what arbitration is all about. Sometimes you need a referee.
I have no problem with having this debate. All I want is some sort of honesty about whether you see Sharia as only applying to marriage and divorce, or whether you have a broader agenda.
Your call.
Douglas – now we have gone round a bit in cicrcles, I’d be interested in a few things.
Just to clarify as I said I’d like to know more about Shariah and hence I don’t know if it is the whole lot of part – I think he suggested limited parts – but that aside.
I’d be interested in yours, Saqib’s, Sofia’s and Sonia’s views of where this goes:
1. How should the Muslim Community respond given the fact the media is responding very negatively?
2. How should the religous community respond as a whole?
3. How should the secular community respond given the fact this is now in the public forum?
Where does this go now? In general what is the role for religion in society?
I won’t say much – promise – but just interested in your views.
Douglas – I have no agenda at all. I’d like to see people helped that is all. I repeat I don’t know enough about Shariah to make a call. I like the law as it is. But I see that people go to unofficial courts and given the results the media is reporting that troubles me.
I see the civil law as there to help all in as many situations as possible.
I’ve always said that it should apply to marriage and divorce to make peoples lives easier.
BTW – it isn’t that I am always on the side of religion but what troubles me here at PP is that people always kick religion and given the fact that so many people follow religion then that is excluding a large % of society form the debate.
Cohesive society is about inclusion not exclusion.
Yup, we have indeed gone around in circles. What with ‘whippersnapper’ and ’senile’ in the same discussion thread, I’d say that what is truly remarkable about this site is that we can compromise at the end of the day.
Which is a good thing.
I’d be interested in other folks views too. I think you and I are all talked out.
Is anyone else reading this stuff?
Oh, probably not.
omg you lot still at it…
“omg you lot still at it…”
This one (this issue) is going to run and run!
(and run and run and run)
The more people find out what is actually happening *now* the bigger the argument is going to get.
People do not want to see stabbings sent to “Somali” courts in the UK; they do not want to see extra benefits paid to polygamists.
The ABC has well and truly lit the fuse.
(Interesting to hear what he will say today.)
Avi – hope that your proposed “control” will include equal opportunity for women to become judges!
going forward, what interests me the most is the Channel 4 documentary on what the Sharia Council is currently doing. Interestingly the women who were coming looking for divorces – had already been divorced according to civil law, but were looking for an ‘islamic’ divorce. For some reason, the Sharia Council did not seem to advise them that if they have been divorced according to English law, that divorce holds Islamically. So in effect, they were making them go through parallel procedures, when a sensible scholar would have advised them that actually , the job was done. This is clearly problematic – and contrary to Islamic principles – even sunnipath will tell them so!) there seems to be an emphasis on making people think ‘kaffir’ law is distinct from ‘islamic law’. In the divorce instance, once you are divorced by the law of the land you live in, that’s it, you’re divorced in the eyes of Islam too. i think its very important – for people who will choose to follow that religion, to work out what’s actually what – most of us are very confused ( myself included) and this is where my concern has arisen. There needs to be proper information/advice given out so people can make their own decisions whether or not they need recourse to a sharia court. If they are fully aware of the legal situation , that say, in the example of a woman divorced under the law of the land, who seeks a divorce granted to her by the sharia court – if she knows that she doesn’t technically need to go to the sharia court, that the job is done, but for her own personal belief reasons, she wants to go anyway, pay them some money to divorce her ‘islamically’ from her husband, well that’s her business to put herself through that procedure. But she needs some advice, some women are clearly going to the sharia council, seeking an islamic divorce from the guy who is already their ex-husband, who has already signed divorce papers, not understanding that this means their ‘islamic’ marriage is dissolved as well.
So i think, people need to have a good understanding – using the divorce example, whether they need “Islamic” divorces, for example, when they are already divorced according to the law of the land.
As for me, yes precisely, the issue of being classified a Muslim by the ‘wider community’ when one does not subscribe to any of the beliefs, is most definitely a problem. Once you are known a Muslim (by dint of who your family is) to the wider community of Muslims, unless you want to table a motion saying you are not, and bringing along a huge amount of Fuss and Fatwas, and this is of course the problem of apostasy. Not tolerated, nope. If there is a significant change in how Muslim families and society react to their younger generation sticking a finger up to their religion, why i’m sure there would be not so much of a hoo-ha.
Sonia,
Re your last paragraph, it would be interesting to see what Avi Cohen had to say about apostasy, in a spirit of understanding the extent that we are supposed to tolerate Sharia Law. Are we supposed to tolerate that? I’d vote no.
Douglas – As I said to you earlier I don’t know enough and hence it isn’t my call which is why I asked Sonia the question about her belief.
Again her post – thank you Sonia – highlights what I have been saying to you that this whole things needs to be brought under control as it is clear that the religous courts themselves don’t know what they are doing.
The more I read what Sonia wrote the more it troubles me that this is effectively something that we need to know more about to ensure that people get their full rights.
I now strongly believe this needs some level of control and not be like a backstreet abortion was some decades ago.
I think the time has come for idiotic preachers and self-taught Imams to not be issuing decisions.
As regards apostacy religion is a personnal thing and as was pointed out in the Afghanistan case it requires the principle of an Islamic State to decide this. As there isn’t one then do such punishments apply?
Part of the problem of some youngsters in all religions sticking their finger up is because values that are brought over are difficult to accept for a religion and indeed may have little basis in religion.
actually ive feeling now that courts shouldnt be brought under the state. whenever the state aquires something they mess it up.
first they bugger up unofficial power relations which take AGES to grow. think of all the jealousies that will arise when some people are acredited, others arent and cowboys get accredited.
second they subject something which may have some authority of its own, to governmentisation… making them less credible to the people who wanted guidance for their nasty marital strife.
third, in the uk for now its a mess waiting to happen, all sorts of social enigineering will be attempted by malcontents, ‘immasculists’ and sugar coated multicultists.
Avi #124, just because most of these women in these closed communities are more religious than men and go to the Islamic courts does not then mean they’re a good and progressive thing. It’s the 21st century folks!
It was an enlightened philosopher who once said ‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world’. The oppressed, in this case women, reach out to this heart as they have no where else to go, hence more women in these closed communities are more religious. But in the end, the courts offer no solution to their misery.
Alibhai-Brown makes sense, in my mind, by looking at the reality for women:
‘Yet, family disputes, says Dr Williams, would be easier, within sharia. For whom exactly? The polygamous men who live in this country, yes, certainly. Not for their wives who will be told that God intends them to lower their eyes and accept unjust verdicts. Many will be sent back to bastard husbands or flinty-eyed mullahs will take their children away. In Bradford and Halifax, they may be forbidden to drive or work where men are employed. Adultery will be punished. I don’t think we will have public stonings but violence of some sort will be meted out (it already is) with lawmakers’ backing.’
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
Good for Yasmin.
Of course she’d also say something along the lines of ‘who would want marry muslim men at this rate’..
Bloody hell, is this still going on? Time to kill the discussion I think. I’m going to take it in a diff direction tonight.
Yup Sunny, it sure is. And I’d like to say it was worth it. The point about this thread, for me at least, has been about liberal values, which kind of obviously includes women. Which is not where the ABC, nor his patriarchal chums started out from. If we have won a skirmish here, and I think we have, perhaps we can win a war.
Just out of curiosity, is 442 not a kind of record on here?
Lol, yes it is.