Just out of curiosity, is 442 not a kind of record on here?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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?