http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954471.html

I wonder what you mean by the word “inevitable”.

Obviously sharia exists in some ways here now and is treated as a foreign law by British law as and when required, and is allowed as a way of individuals settling disputes on an agreed basis between themselves. British social services even recognise polygamous marriages in certain circumstances.

But in my reading of my dictionary “inevitable” is used to refer to something, which hasn’t yet happened, or doesn’t yet exist, but will in the future.(And that is what the AoC was on about, a recogntion and allowance of sharia beyond what we have now)

What is inevitable, unavoidable, about sharia in that sense?

Qoute
It doesn’t matter what you want, the fact is that sharia can already exist in this country and does exist in this country, in some shape or form. This has already been explained plenty of times above. It is inevitable if you want a law of the land that applies equally to everyone, and allows civil arbitration over issues like marriage and divorce
Unquote

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by this. In what way is sharia (I assume that is what you mean by “it”) inevitable. Plese give an example.

Why shouldn’t the prsent situation continue? Why shouldn’t British law pay less or no attention to religious beliefs of any kind in the future? Everyone would get the same treatment. i.e., it applies equally to everyone.

I think sharia should not be an option if laws within that contravene our own laws. That is likely to be the case anyway. Any other hysterics?

If you want your marriage laws to come from sharia then do you want the rest of sharia, yes or no???

so now you’re asking me if i’m against the death penalty? (for example)…again…you seem to favour a truncated, bastardised version of a series of laws that you now want me to dissect and give an answer to?

you really do talk bollocks

I didn’t say that..you’re the one that is generalising..i was just talking about myself and my choice and how shariah affects me…

Why complain about people not reading the speech when it is the archbishop himself who summarised it on Radio 4? Either it was a fair summary of his views, in which case people are entitled to criticise them without recourse to the longer speech.

my point is more that people seem to be summarising the content of the summary without having read it *or* the speech.

the archbishop can hardly complain about people misunderstanding him if he himself is unable to summarise what he actually said in plain English.

now here i think we probably agree.

b’shalom

bananabrain

But i daresay a crash course could involve looking up answers on places like Sunnipath, IslamOnline etc.

But to come back to the really interesting thing – we all have different views of what it means for us, , which i think is the root of the disagreement between so many people.

Because of the complexity, its clearly hard to say ‘well so and so is right and so and so is wrong’ when we’re not a bunch of fiqh experts. And law – of any kind – has always been tortuous.

Still, its interesting to look at the assumptions we hold or don’t hold. For example, I always thought ( and assumed everyone else thought so too!) that a registry office marriage and a civil divorce (anywhere in the world) applied islamically, because the key ingredients required – from an Islamic perspective – were present in the civil procedures. Now actually this turns out to not a universally held position – and I think that they reflect different attitudes to Islam, including differing attitudes to the importance of ritual, over intention.

when i got married, i didn’t have an ‘islamic’ nikah, i didnt have that till i went to bangladesh, and [as far] as i understood, it was more from a ritualistic, cultural significance for my family. they seemed to be happy with the fact that registry office marriage in the UK was ‘halal’ if you get my drift, and i’d just assumed at the time this was the norm. But clearly different people have different understanding.

so different people will have a different reaction – based on what they think is being talked about!

Sunny, are you for or against Sharia civil courts?! Or are you just angry at the BBC?