Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.

Ediin wrote:Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.

If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.

Amaya wrote:

Ediin wrote:Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.

If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.

Which is bad. These conservative Muslims have got the privilege of being allowed to live in England. They should change themselves, not the system.

It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.

I think Sebster brings up a good point. We are missing a prime opportunity for some high quality television here! Judge Mahmud has potential in the prime time line up

I actually find some of the comments here very entertaining. There was a time, say a thousand years or so ago, that muslim courts were some of the fairest you could find in the world. Also, I feel it important to point out that not all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. In the Abbasid dynasty there were four different court systems for four different Sharia interpretations, plus the Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish courts. In Islamic history, the idea of multiple legal systems coexisting isn't that far fetched of a concept (whether or not that cultural history is at play here I don't know). One shouldn't automatically assume a muslim conspiracy to take over the legal system, especially when that isn't what is happening.

Amaya wrote:Now, how the hell did we get to the point where rape is justifiable under any circumstances? We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th.

As I've pointed out several times, including in a response directly to you, the ruling made no comment on the rape, that case was going ahead. This was a seperate matter, on whether the ex-husband posed an on-going threat to his wife to justify a restraining order. He felt that as the husband had only acted as he did because felt it was his right as the husband, and that he was no longer the husband he was not going to act like that any more.

Again, and please don't make me repeat it anymore, at no point did any court consider rape acceptable or legal in anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ediin wrote:Personally, I think it's a bad idea, and religion should never be an aspect of the law. What's so bad about the existing system? Why do people NEED the Sharia system?
However, if they can make it work without any major incidents I guess it could work.

You understand that parties agree to enter into private arbitration all the time? Do you know that's what Judge Judy is?

People have a private dispute, and rather than wait for it to drag through small claims or any other civil court, instead they agree to private arbitration. It's just that instead of going to an secular arbitrator they can agree to go to a Sharia court, if they choose.

Kilkrazy and Sebster have raised good points.

The Sharia and Judaic courts are only for civil matters, not criminal. And just like civil arbitration (which we have here in the US too; including even TV show arbitration like Judge Judy), they're only by mutual consent.

If one party could coerce or intimidate the other into using a Sharia court, they could just as easily coerce or intimidate the other into dropping the suit if there were no such court.

I don't condone racism or sexism, but I don't see much to be scared of here.

LordofHats wrote:

It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.

I think Sebster brings up a good point. We are missing a prime opportunity for some high quality television here! Judge Mahmud has potential in the prime time line up

I actually find some of the comments here very entertaining. There was a time, say a thousand years or so ago, that muslim courts were some of the fairest you could find in the world. Also, I feel it important to point out that not all Muslims have the same interpretation of Sharia. In the Abbasid dynasty there were four different court systems for four different Sharia interpretations, plus the Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish courts. In Islamic history, the idea of multiple legal systems coexisting isn't that far fetched of a concept (whether or not that cultural history is at play here I don't know). One shouldn't automatically assume a muslim conspiracy to take over the legal system, especially when that isn't what is happening.

It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.

However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.

I might be coming off as Islamophobic, but it's more the case that I am an advocate of equal rights for both genders (IE, a feminist) and an advocate for LGBT rights. Although Islam does not do it exclusively, it certainly tramples on both these rights more regularly than Christianity or Judaism in this day and age.

I also oppose the Christian argument against gay marriage too (a subject which comes up with disturbing frequency here, but then it might just be that I live in Texas and there's probably several closet homosexuals in office here who are trying to hide behind vitriolic speech), but that's a rant for another topic.

Amaya wrote:If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.

That's the kind of stuff people on the fringes are inventing, based on a misunderstanding of private arbitration, and a desire to find things about Muslims to be afraid about.

Do you feel it is a problem that people privately agree to have their issues sorted out by Judge Judy?

... I do... but then I have a problem with any time someone uses theatrics to make a mockery of the court system, whether it happens on daytime television or in a quiet unknown case. Not because of the arbitration issue.

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:If I understand correctly the UK judicial system is cumbersome in the same manner as the US judicial system. The desire for Sharia law stems from the refusal of Muslims to intergrate into Western societies.

That's the kind of stuff people on the fringes are inventing, based on a misunderstanding of private arbitration, and a desire to find things about Muslims to be afraid about.

Do you feel it is a problem that people privately agree to have their issues sorted out by Judge Judy?

So we're going to pretend that LBGT, women, and non Muslims are not considered second class or out and out immoral in the eyes of Sharia law.

It doesn't matter if only Muslims are the ones being affected by these rulings now.

The issue is that Muslims are in democratic, European nations passing down rulings that run contrary to the accepted laws of that nation.

Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.

However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.

Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.

However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.

Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

Even those these rulings have been passed by Sharia courts in England:

"that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim"
approval of "polygamous marriage"
"a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances"

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.

However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.

Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

I agree. This is Sharia in England, not Iran.

Amaya wrote:However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.

Some Christians actually got some pretty sweet perks under the Ottomans

Janissary

Sure your a slave, but the fringe benefits

Jews and CHristians had it pretty smooth at various points in Islamic history. One shouldn't equate being treated differently with being treated unequally, which can happen, but there are some areas where'd I'd say Christians actually had one up on Muslims. They didn't have to pay taxes Then again the Ottomans never were very good with money

sebster wrote:Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.

I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.

Melissia wrote:I might be coming off as Islamophobic, but it's more the case that I am an advocate of equal rights for both genders (IE, a feminist) and an advocate for LGBT rights. Although Islam does not do it exclusively, it certainly tramples on both these rights more regularly than Christianity or Judaism in this day and age.

I also oppose the Christian argument against gay marriage too (a subject which comes up with disturbing frequency here, but then it might just be that I live in Texas and there's probably several closet homosexuals in office here who are trying to hide behind vitriolic speech), but that's a rant for another topic.

I suspect I've called and bothered as many or more Senators and Congresspeople on issues of women's rights and LBGT rights as anyone on here. But I think you're picking the wrong thing to get outraged about. There are enough of real issues to worry about, like the snowjob Breitbart's trying to pull to screw over Planned Parenthood right now, or Stupak on Steroids, or the garbage about only "forcible" rape counting as rape in the lovely "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act".

Don't worry, I have plenty of rage to spare.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense when you view Sharia as a corrupt piece of sexist, homophobic gak like I do.

I don't believe for an instant that they'll faithfully apply Sharia law to ONLY civil acts.

People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.

At what point do you get worried then?

Amaya wrote:So we're going to pretend that LBGT, women, and non Muslims are not considered second class or out and out immoral in the eyes of Sharia law.

Oh feth me I'm going to have to write it again. This is incredible.

"People have a private dispute, and rather than wait for it to drag through small claims or any other civil court, instead they agree to private arbitration. It's just that instead of going to an secular arbitrator they can agree to go to a Sharia court, if they choose."

They can also agree to go on Judge Judy. Do you understand now?

It doesn't matter if only Muslims are the ones being affected by these rulings now.

The issue is that Muslims are in democratic, European nations passing down rulings that run contrary to the accepted laws of that nation.

Does it bother you that Judge Judy can pass rules that run contrary to the accepted laws of the nation?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I might be coming off as Islamophobic, but it's more the case that I am an advocate of equal rights for both genders (IE, a feminist) and an advocate for LGBT rights. Although Islam does not do it exclusively, it certainly tramples on both these rights more regularly than Christianity or Judaism in this day and age.

I also oppose the Christian argument against gay marriage too (a subject which comes up with disturbing frequency here, but then it might just be that I live in Texas and there's probably several closet homosexuals in office here who are trying to hide behind vitriolic speech), but that's a rant for another topic.

Oh, there is a huge problem with gender equality within Islam. There's even more hostility towards homosexuality.

But those things aren't impacted by Sharia law. Well, except Family Courts, which are civil and that is a problem, and where an ex-husband might coerce his former wife to accept a Sharia ruling. I'd agree that in matters of Family Law Sharia shouldn't apply.

Mannahnin wrote:People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.

Assuming they report it in the first place instead of using social intimidation to force the victim and offender to use a Sharia court, thus hiding the criminal offense from the eyes of the law.

@Sebster. Why are you ignoring the rulings?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:People are legally only permitted to use Sharia and Judaic courts for civil arbitration. If a crime happens the police and the regular courts are in play and the Sharia and Judaic courts aren't even involved.

Assuming they report it in the first place instead of using social intimidation to force the victim and offender to use a Sharia court, thus hiding the criminal offense from the eyes of the law.

Like they do with Honor Killings where no one will testify?

sebster wrote:But those things aren't impacted by Sharia law.

Oh yes they are. Sharia law is the very thing that is used to justify the state-sponsored murder of homosexuals in Islamic countries, amongst other things.

Amaya wrote:@Sebster. Why are you ignoring the rulings?

What rulings? Are you worried about precedent, or something? Are you as worried about Judge Judy's rulings, because she has as much power to set precedent as a Sharia court.

Like they do with Honor Killings where no one will testify?

That would be criminal matter, and have nothing to do with Sharia Law.

Amaya wrote:

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:It's difficult to say how fair those courts were, but in some ways they were superior to the system in Europe.

However, it is no longer a thousand or so years ago, and we live in a world where the rights of everyone are considered important. This have never been the case for Islam. Non Muslims and women have always been second class citizens under their laws.

Again... civil courts dealing with civil matters such as property damage and breaches of contract. Both parties have to agree. If you could please just read that and accept it, you would quickly see your worry about the rights of women makes no sense.

Even those these rulings have been passed by Sharia courts in England:

"that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim"
approval of "polygamous marriage"
"a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances"

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:But those things aren't impacted by Sharia law.

Oh yes they are. Sharia law is the very thing that is used to justify the state-sponsored murder of homosexuals in Islamic countries, amongst other things.

Yes, but we're talking about Sharia law as applied in Western countries. Where it is limited to purely civil matters, and does not and cannot impact upon the legal protections of anyone regardless of sexual preference or gender.

You want to talk about Sharia law as practised in different Islamic countries? Go right ahead, I'd be happy to point out the extensive list of letter writing campaigns I've been a part of to various Islamic countries to stop instances of abuse tehy justified under Islamic law (some even work, albeit rarely).

But that's got nothing to do with the scope of Sharia law as practised in the UK. It can't be made clearer. It only applies to civil matters, and only if both parties agree. Talking about Sharia law in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in relation to it is a complete nonsense.

sebster wrote:That would be criminal matter, and have nothing to do with Sharia Law.

Sure it does, because it is condoned by Sharia law.

Just because it's a criminal matter doesn't mean anything if the community that uses the Sharia court believes that court takes precedence over the official criminal courts of the country.

Amaya, neither of those sounds anything like a ruling from a court of civil arbitration. You seem to be conflating two different things. Would you kindly provide a link/a reference to the think you're talking about, so we can see if it has anything to do with the use of Sharia courts in England?

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:That would be criminal matter, and have nothing to do with Sharia Law.

Sure it does, because it is condoned by Sharia law.

Just because it's a criminal matter doesn't mean anything if the community that uses the Sharia court believes that court takes precedence over the official criminal courts of the country.

If the community conceals a murder, the justification they use for doing so has nothing to do with the law of the land. English law doesn't condone or sanction such a conspiracy in any way.

Amaya wrote:Even those these rulings have been passed by Sharia courts in England:

"that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim"
approval of "polygamous marriage"
"a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances"

Now think about what would happen if Judge Judy declared the same thing? It means those things would apply to those parties who agreed to arbitration in her courtroom, and nowhere else.

That polygamous marriage that Judge Judy agreed to would have no weight in the greater legal system. The issue of the child is important, as I noted, because the Sharia courts can decide on matters of family law. That's the first point anyone's made that verges on actual content.