NationStates Jolt Archive

A couple of days ago i read a interview by a leading islamic scholar in Britain. The said scholar purported that islamic law -sharia-should be allowed to apply in special islamic courts in the UK, as -he claimed, although i´m not sure this is true- rabinical courts are consented presently. This scholar suported such tribunals, but made clear that they would only trial specific issues-such as divorce cases-and would only be able to pass judgement if both parties in dispute consented to it.
So, how do you regard this issue? Should sharia courts, under this terms (or any others) -be allowed in Britain, or any other western country?

They cannot be allowed as they would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK has to abide by as a member of the Council of Europe.

No.

Ummm.....

No.

Religious law has no place in a secular state.

This scholar suported such tribunals, but made clear that they would only trial specific issues-such as divorce cases-and would only be able to pass judgement if both parties in dispute consented to it.
Why would you even need a court then if it could only pass judgement when one consents? It seems rather pointless to me.
So, how do you regard this issue? Should sharia courts, under this terms (or any others) -be allowed in Britain, or any other western country?
If they really want to, go ahead, as long as it really is consentual. And as long as actual crimes (murder, theft, etc.) are dealt with in a normal court as well. One could live under sharia if they wished, but that shouldn't give them the right to circumvent law.

Religious law has no place in a secular state.

Tell that to Iraq. :(

There is only one legal system in the UK.

To introduce multple versions of the law for different people would be to prevent equity before the law.

I'm a bit torn.

The same thing has been brought up in Canada. Here we have a precedent, where Jewish family courts are allowed to settle certain disputes. We also have Native sentencing circles, where certain crimes are dealt with by the community.

But Shari'a law seems to be much more overweening than these examples, and many Muslims within Canada have come out in opposition to the move. Very few Jewish or Natives have opposed the systems that have been set up for them. I would say: if there is considerable opposition to this, then don't back it. And if there is a lot of support, go ahead...but revisit it every couple of years to see if people still want it in place.

And set limits. Natives can not have murder trials judged in the sentencing circles, and Jews can not contravene family law in their tribunals.

There is only one legal system in the UK.

To introduce multple versions of the law for different people would be to prevent equity before the law.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The UK, like Canada, has a system which allows Jewish tribunals to judge family disputes. They can do things like arbitrate in a case where a man will not give his wife a ghet (divorce). In essence, what we are talking about is arbitration, not a separate court system. Both parties must agree beforehand to be bound by the arbitration before the process can move forward. The arbitration is based on cultural norms, (much as our justice system is).

The issues that some people have is that although the process must be voluntarily entered into, there is of course the possibility of immense communal or family pressure, which might force women in particular into arbitration which will most likely not favour them (under Shari'a, children belong to the man, and so on). This is the reason many Muslims oppose it.

Here is an article about shari'a law in Ontario (http://www.youmeworks.com/sharia_canada.html) (some of the uses of it, and opposition to it).

Sharia law in Canada? Yes. The province of Ontario has authorized the use of sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. The arbitrations will deal with such matters as property, marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance. The arbitrators can be imams, Muslim elders or lawyers. In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do. These decisions can be appealed to the regular courts. But for Muslim women, the pressures to abide by the precepts of sharia are overwhelming. To reject sharia is, quite simply, to be a bad Muslim.

Of course, the same sort of things could be going on in Jewish tribunals...but Jewish women are somewhat more settled in our country, and tend to not be as shy about using the court system to dispute a tribunal judgement. Those most at risk for being pressured into Shari'a arbitration are women, and new immigrants. I'd have to say, I'm not wild about the idea. I think the Shari'a arbitrators should be able to suggest, but not bind.

In essence, what we are talking about is arbitration, not a separate court system.

There are rights that you cannot sign away, and it seems to me like Shari'a arbitration would violate several of them.

There are rights that you cannot sign away, and it seems to me like Shari'a arbitration would violate several of them.
Well, supposedly it would not be allowed to, as any judgements must still adhere to domestic law. However, the biggest roadblock to that is the lack of oversight to ensure this.

What rights are you thinking of in particular that would be violated by this?

Well, supposedly it would not be allowed to, as any judgements must still adhere to domestic law. However, the biggest roadblock to that is the lack of oversight to ensure this.

What rights are you thinking of in particular that would be violated by this?
Well, one matter that comes to mind almost immediatelly is that sharia courts would apply law through islamic scholars, and one could be so bold as to claim that there would always be some bias against women.

Well, one matter that comes to mind almost immediatelly is that sharia courts would apply law through islamic scholars, and one could be so bold as to claim that there would always be some bias against women.
But consider this. If you signed a prenup that says, "in the event of divorce, the woman will be left destitute, and the children will go to the father", do the courts not have to apply this agreement? Arbitration must be agreed to. The people in question are aware of the cultural norms, and must be willing to abide by them. Otherwise, they can withhold their consent.

But I think there is absolutely going to be bias against women...then again, many people claim there is bias against men in domestic disputes in the regular court system. Who is to say which system is truly better? The fear I have is that women will not realise they have other avenues, or will be pressured into taking arbitration over other channels, and no one the wiser. If some sort of independant oversight could be set up, I might support it a bit more...but I still think it would be a bad idea, simply because more traditional and fundamentalist views are coming here as immigration continues, and those most at risk are not necessarily going to be aware of their other rights. The Jewish and Native communities are more settled, and not being as affected by traditional views and immigrant influence.

Well, one matter that comes to mind almost immediatelly is that sharia courts would apply law through islamic scholars, and one could be so bold as to claim that there would always be some bias against women.

It depends on how it's handled. Most of the use of Shariah is based in the "spirit of the law" and, in true Shariah, there is no bias. What's troubling - such as in the case of the Iraqi Constitution (you know, the one we sent boys over to die for) - is that some folks hold Shariah as the culmination of what people have already decided.

What this means is that some Imam with a very small penis decided 500 years ago that women needed to be branded upon marriage to show they are owned by someone and, thus, it must be held true today. This is *not* Shariah. Shariah is the law of Allah, not of men. We can interpret, yes, but anything that goes against Qur'an cannot be Shariah.

So, a bias against women when Qur'an clearly has Allah stating that we were created equal and are loved equally cannot be upheld.

Our laws stand. Our legal systems are the only legal systems. 2.7% isn't a large enough number to start getting your own legal systems to play around with. If you want an oppressive, religiously-motivated regime, you know where the Middle East is. If you don't like our legal system, you know where the airport is.

Why would you even need a court then if it could only pass judgement when one consents? It seems rather pointless to me.

The U.S. has similar systems in place, though I don't know that any of them are based on religious law. Ever heard of arbitration? It sounds like what's being proposed in the U.K. is just an alternative method of dispute resolution that would allow Muslims to settle disputes under their own religious law without involving the actual court system.

And Shari'a law is not completely homogenous. There are a number of variations on the same theme. Which version will be used?

I would make my final decision based on the amount of support versus the amount of dissent. And right now, the dissent is strong.

Our laws stand. Our legal systems are the only legal systems. 2.7% isn't a large enough number to start getting your own legal systems to play around with. If you want an oppressive, religiously-motivated regime, you know where the Middle East is. If you don't like our legal system, you know where the airport is.
Perhaps you can go back and read the first page over. It's not a separate legal system. And are you even aware that jewish tribunals are already well in place, and have been doing the same sort of thing for decades?

Tell that to Iraq. :(
Then tell it to George Bush.

The U.S. has similar systems in place, though I don't know that any of them are based on religious law. Ever heard of arbitration? It sounds like what's being proposed in the U.K. is just an alternative method of dispute resolution that would allow Muslims to settle disputes under their own religious law without involving the actual court system.
That's right. The arbitration would be based on religious law...that does not mean religious law is going to BECOME law. It's a system on which to base decisions.

Arbitration can not contravene existing laws. If someone beats you, and the law says the police will press charges, independent of the wishes of the victim, that law stands. If this sort of system is given the nod, arbitrators may be convened to discuss the matter as well, and the aggressor may be asked to make reparations, seek religious counseling, or whatever. The charges still remain...but there is the possibility (as there is in Native communities) that the sentence will be carried out in the community. I'm not sure if they've been asking for this sort of thing, but Native sentencing circles do have the power to make such suggestions to the courts. The ultimate decision is the Canadian legal system though, not our elders.

Perhaps you can go back and read the first page over. It's not a separate legal system. And are you even aware that jewish tribunals are already well in place, and have been doing the same sort of thing for decades?

"The said scholar purported that islamic law -sharia-should be allowed to apply in special islamic courts in the UK"

Islamic Law? Islamic courts? Sounds like they're pushing for their own legal system to me. Any Jewish tribunals in the UK need to be removed as well.

The Canadian Council of Muslim Women has been strongly opposed to Shari'a law in Canada...but their stance seems to be softening as negotiations continue. This is their latest statement (lhttp://www.ccmw.com/In%20The%20Press/Sharia_in_Canada.htm) on the issue.

Their initial response (http://www.ccmw.com/MuslimFamilyLaw/Initial%20Response%20to%20Boyd%20Report.htm).

What rights are you thinking of in particular that would be violated by this?

Equality before a court of law is one. Arbitration can be seen as an extension of a judicial office, and thus, no matter what you sign, or how much you agree to the arbitration, you still cannot be denied that equality.

I trust I need not remind anyone of how Shari'a is not exactly famous for equality or, well, justice.

"The said scholar purported that islamic law -sharia-should be allowed to apply in special islamic courts in the UK"

Islamic Law? Islamic courts? Sounds like they're pushing for their own legal system to me.
And yet, they aren't. Strange how a cursory read of a summary can leave you with the wrong impression, isn't it?

Any Jewish tribunals in the UK need to be removed as well.
Justify that. With something other than, 'it's teh bad'. These arbitrations have been going on for decades, with few problems. The community is happy with the decisions, and the decisions adhere to your legal code. Just as any sort of legal contract must. Will you outlaw those too? You just might put lawyers out of work....

Equality before a court of law is one. Arbitration can be seen as an extension of a judicial office, and thus, no matter what you sign, or how much you agree to the arbitration, you still cannot be denied that equality.

What about prenuptual agreements? They are a form of arbitration, and are adhered to, and sometimes they deny equality. Yet they are adhered to. They can not contravene existing laws (e.g. if my husband cheats, I will, with his consent set forth in this document, cut off his penis). But they are binding contracts that can only be broken by the courts. Simliar things, based on different values, but still binding.

And yet, they aren't. Strange how a cursory read of a summary can leave you with the wrong impression, isn't it?


Justify that. With something other than, 'it's teh bad'. These arbitrations have been going on for decades, with few problems. The community is happy with the decisions, and the decisions adhere to your legal code. Just as any sort of legal contract must. Will you outlaw those too? You just might put lawyers out of work....
But what would happen, for instance, if a illiterate muslim wife gives her consent to a sharia trial in a divorce case, the children guard is awarded to the husband, with absolutely no visiting rights (yes, i no this will sound familiar to many in the Uk, just on reverse) to the mother? Should official authorities not step in and reverse the sentence?

What about prenuptual agreements? They are a form of arbitration, and are adhered to, and sometimes they deny equality. Yet they are adhered to. They can not contravene existing laws (e.g. if my husband cheats, I will, with his consent set forth in this document, cut off his penis). But they are binding contracts that can only be broken by the courts. Simliar things, based on different values, but still binding.

But when you apply to have a court arbiter your prenuptial agreement, you expect, and are to be given, equality before that court - not in what you have signed, but before that court. That you are a woman, or whatever, is not to affect the arbitration to your dis/advantage.

And yet, they aren't. Strange how a cursory read of a summary can leave you with the wrong impression, isn't it?

Look back over the last few years, not just to this one instance. At every turn, Muslims are attempting to alter the legal system to fit in with them -- the latest free-speech cramping bill about 'religious hatred', for instance, was just one of many such attempts.

Justify that. With something other than, 'it's teh bad'. These arbitrations have been going on for decades, with few problems. The community is happy with the decisions, and the decisions adhere to your legal code. Just as any sort of legal contract must. Will you outlaw those too? You just might put lawyers out of work....

The law applies to everybody equally, that's why. When you start tagging labels onto things like this and you're basically taking a slash on the fire of everything the whole 'equal rights' movement [stood] for.

At least the Jewish Tribunals use the proper legal definitions of their particular nation, though. That's something. Muslim leaders would have theirs named '(Insert Islam Brand Here) Courts' and have their own religious laws supersede our own, secular laws. That's a good thing? Sorry if I disagree.

A bit more information ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2106547/) on the controversy here in Canada.

The plan to use formal panels of imams and Muslim scholars to resolve family-law disputes is neither radical nor subversive. For one thing, Canadian imams have been informally using sharia law to settle disputes between Muslims for years. For another, a 1991 Ontario law known as the Ontario Arbitration Act permits Orthodox Jews and Christians to submit to voluntary faith-based arbitration. These agreements are then ratified by secular civil courts, so long as their rulings conform to Canadian law, and both parties were willing participants.

Ontario Muslims have merely sought to officially reap the benefits of the Arbitration Act, leaving the Ontario government with two unpleasant alternatives: They must either scrap the act altogether or unearth some principled justification for allowing some religious citizens, but not Muslims, to benefit from its protections. The question somehow comes down to whether sharia is too inherently sexist to be reconciled with Canada's civil rights laws. And if anything definitive can be said about sharia, it's that no such definitive pronouncements can be made.

Still, supporters of sharia tribunals in Canada have strong arguments—in addition to claims of basic fairness suggesting that if Catholics and Orthodox Jews can have divorces settled by religious courts, fundamentalist Muslims must be allowed to do the same. They insist that these religious arbitrations are voluntary. No one is forced into religious courts. They say that if a party to an arbitrated agreement is dissatisfied, she may always ask the civil courts to overturn it. And proponents urge that this is an opportunity to reform and revitalize sharia; creating a hybrid of Canadian-style freedoms and traditional values.

Perhaps most important, supporters of these tribunals argue that any aspect of sharia that conflicts with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would simply not be enforceable by the tribunals. The charter expressly provides that "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." Worries about a subclass of impoverished women and their abandoned children are misplaced, they insist, as is xenophobic hysteria over stonings or polygamy. Such measures violate the laws of Canada and are simply not available to sharia panels.

I'm still against it. But a valid point has been brought up. If we can allow orthodox Jews and Christians to access arbitration, then why not Muslims? And even if all arbitration is officially banned, unofficial arbitration will still exist, and could be put into effect via other legal contracts. In a way, I'd like it out in the open, with clear checks and balances in place. I'm just not sure right now that the Muslim community has those balances in place they way Jewish and Christian communities do.

But what would happen, for instance, if a illiterate muslim wife gives her consent to a sharia trial in a divorce case, the children guard is awarded to the husband, with absolutely no visiting rights (yes, i no this will sound familiar to many in the Uk, just on reverse) to the mother? Should official authorities not step in and reverse the sentence?
The arbitration does not occur in writing alone. The woman is well aware of the likely outcome. She can go to the courst to have the decision reversed, or challenged. She might still end up without the kids though.

But this is the problem. Many women, especially new immigrants, will not be aware of their full rights. This is where oversight is needed. I don't think that oversight is practical at this point.

But when you apply to have a court arbiter your prenuptial agreement, you expect, and are to be given, equality before that court - not in what you have signed, but before that court. That you are a woman, or whatever, is not to affect the arbitration to your dis/advantage.
No, but what you have agreed to may work to your disadvantage.

Is Shari'a law inherently sexist? This is the question. It is very telling that the most vocal opposition to these kinds of tribunals are from Muslim women. Yet arbitration still goes on behind the scenes, and women may be forced to sign agreements that leave them without children or support in the case of a divorce ANYWAY. The woman could possible challenge this legal agreement in the court, but she will be pressured not to. And that's informal arbitration, with no oversight at all. My hope would be that oversight would become a part of this system, and all judgements would be reviewed.

I don't see that happening right now though, but it may.

And Shari'a law is not completely homogenous. There are a number of variations on the same theme. Which version will be used?

I would make my final decision based on the amount of support versus the amount of dissent. And right now, the dissent is strong.
I dont think that thats a sound agreement to purport. If one starts inquiring about the feelings of the majority to ascertain if one should support public policy, then one has one´s hands tied by the will of the majority, and must always conform to its wishes, no matter how ludicrous and unfair they prove to be.

Look back over the last few years, not just to this one instance. At every turn, Muslims are attempting to alter the legal system to fit in with them -- the latest free-speech cramping bill about 'religious hatred', for instance, was just one of many such attempts.

Riiiiight. So you think Muslims shouldn't be protected from racial hatred then? You think it's ok for the BNP to get up and make speeches encouraging members to attack and injur Muslims because of their faith?

You are an idiot.

Riiiiight. So you think Muslims shouldn't be protected from racial hatred then? You think it's ok for the BNP to get up and make speeches encouraging members to attack and injur Muslims because of their faith?

You are an idiot.

They already were protected from racial hatred. Religious hatred is something completely different.

No, but what you have agreed to may work to your disadvantage.

Surely, but the court is to be a level playing field.

Is Shari'a law inherently sexist? This is the question.

I should think that had already been settled - resoundingly, yes!

It is very telling that the most vocal opposition to these kinds of tribunals are from Muslim women. Yet arbitration still goes on behind the scenes, and women may be forced to sign agreements that leave them without children or support in the case of a divorce ANYWAY. The woman could possible challenge this legal agreement in the court, but she will be pressured not to. And that's informal arbitration, with no oversight at all. My hope would be that oversight would become a part of this system, and all judgements would be reviewed.

I don't see that happening right now though, but it may.

To accept the lunacy and give it some sort of status, in my opinion, is not the right way to help these women.

Look back over the last few years, not just to this one instance. At every turn, Muslims are attempting to alter the legal system to fit in with them -- the latest free-speech cramping bill about 'religious hatred', for instance, was just one of many such attempts.
The Muslims are just the ones you notice at this moment. Other groups have done the same thing, and will do the same thing in future. People fight all the time to change, recind, enact laws. The judicial system is a fluid, changing thing.

The law applies to everybody equally, that's why. When you start tagging labels onto things like this and you're basically taking a slash on the fire of everything the whole 'equal rights' movement [stood] for.

I don't disagree, especially in this case. But my point is, even with tribunals like this, the law allows for people to enter into contracts that are not necessarily equitable. Deny them in this way, and they'll manage to sneak in the back door with prenups and postnups. I don't think it's something you can wish away. Informal tribunals will still exist, and will still have power.

At least the Jewish Tribunals use the proper legal definitions of their particular nation, though.
No, the Jewish tribunals use religious texts as well, and particular interpretations according to the orthodoxy of the community. Not Israeli secular law.
That's something. Muslim leaders would have theirs named '(Insert Islam Brand Here) Courts' and have their own religious laws supersede our own, secular laws. That's a good thing? Sorry if I disagree.
And no, you're making a false claim again. Their laws would not supercede our own. Our laws would always have the last say, were the outcome to be challenged in the courts. And the tribunals would deal with only specific, and limited aspects of family law, not all law. It would be no different than the religious arbitration experienced by Chrisitans and Jews.

No religious law should ever apply in a country with a secular government. Or any country for that matter. Sharia law is inherrently sexist and far more open to interpretation than other laws. In the past 2 days I would have been executed 4 times under sharia law, yet I havent even broken the actual law once. And I wasnt even including masturbation in those 4 times.

They already were protected from racial hatred. Religious hatred is something completely different.

Bah, typo on my part, sorry, I meant Religious hatred. But you didn't answer my question, do you think incitement to religious hatred is ok?

I dont think that thats a sound agreement to purport. If one starts inquiring about the feelings of the majority to ascertain if one should support public policy, then one has one´s hands tied by the will of the majority, and must always conform to its wishes, no matter how ludicrous and unfair they prove to be.
I never said I'd go with the majority. The support would have to be all but unanimous. And it is far from that. The ideal would be consensus...this is how it would work, this is how we would make sure people are not pressured into it, these are the avenues for challenges, and can you sign on? If people are still questioning it, opposing it, and saying NO! Then I'd say the support is not enough to justify it.

A couple of days ago i read a interview by a leading islamic scholar in Britain. The said scholar purported that islamic law -sharia-should be allowed to apply in special islamic courts in the UK, as -he claimed, although i´m not sure this is true- rabinical courts are consented presently. This scholar suported such tribunals, but made clear that they would only trial specific issues-such as divorce cases-and would only be able to pass judgement if both parties in dispute consented to it.
So, how do you regard this issue? Should sharia courts, under this terms (or any others) -be allowed in Britain, or any other western country?There's rabinical courts?
I suppose under these conditions it would be ok, but Sharia is a word that I associate with repression of women, so I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea.

Surely, but the court is to be a level playing field. How's that exactly? If the agreement says in the case of a divorce, the women will lose custody of the children and forfeit any financial support, the field is not level. The courts don't make the decision based on gender, but the agreement may have been made with that thought in mind. Or not. Still, it stands. Arbitration is the same thing...the idea is that the parties involved can settle their disagreements based on the tenants of their shared religion. The other alternative is to do the same thing, in a secular manner, via a legal contract. In both cases, the courts are likely to abide by the consensual agreement made, regardless of whether that agreement was made based on gender or not.

Do you support Catholic and Jewish tribunals? How about native sentencing circles?

What this means is that some Imam with a very small penis decided 500 years ago that women needed to be branded upon marriage to show they are owned by someone

That gets my vote - can I do the branding?

I'm not particularly bothered. If muslims want to govern themselves with pathetically backward religious law then I don't really care, just as long as it doesn't affect non-muslims in any way.

It shouldn't be allowed. In addition of undermining the authority of the state, it places a certain group outside the law. Whether it benefits these people is not an issue, for history shows us that special classes are no good.

No religious law should ever apply in a country with a secular government. Or any country for that matter. Sharia law is inherrently sexist and far more open to interpretation than other laws. In the past 2 days I would have been executed 4 times under sharia law, yet I havent even broken the actual law once. And I wasnt even including masturbation in those 4 times.
*sigh*
Shari'a law is not being considered as a separate judicial system. It is only being considered for specific family matters such as divorce, child custody and so on. It would not enter the criminal field. Masturbate away.

There's rabinical courts?
Surprised? Most people are. Clearly, people are not up in arms within the Jewish community over these tribunals. Jewish law has not replaced secular law.

I suppose under these conditions it would be ok, but Sharia is a word that I associate with repression of women, so I'm rather uncomfortable with the idea.
RELIGION is a word I associate with repression of women...and yet and yet I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. As long as checks and balances are in place.

It shouldn't be allowed. In addition of undermining the authority of the state, it places a certain group outside the law. Whether it benefits these people is not an issue, for history shows us that special classes are no good.
Interestingly enough, despite the current fundamentalism sweeping Islam, Islamic nations have traditionally dealt quite well with religious differences within their borders. Jews, Christians, Hindus were all allowed certain religious freedoms, which often extended to the laws that bound them. In fact, such is STILL the case in countries such as the United Arab Emirates. Muslims are governed by Shari'a law, but non-Muslims are not. Pluralism. And it's not inherently a bad thing.

But that isn't what is being discussed here. Not separate laws for separate people. The SAME laws for ALL people, with the possibility of culturally sensitive arbitration. There is no law that says, "In all cases of divorce, the woman will get the kids and be paid child support". All cases of divorce involve arbitration, unless that arbitration has already been decided upon in a prenuptual agreement. This is allowing the arbitration to happen outside the courts...but the final decision can STILL be appealed in the courts, and arbitrated there.

Then tell it to George Bush.

He and I are not on speaking terms anymore.

Bah, typo on my part, sorry, I meant Religious hatred. But you didn't answer my question, do you think incitement to religious hatred is ok?

No, I don't think it's OK. But there are many things which I don't agree with which I must tolerate for the sake of freedom. Physical abuse, racist attacks and the like are all covered by other laws, so they are at no risk from any of these (well, they are at risk from them, the law is more of a punitive rather than preventative system). This law seems more like a 'pwease don't make me sad!' law than anything else. The fact that it accomplishes nothing is only the icing on the cake.

The Muslims are just the ones you notice at this moment. Other groups have done the same thing, and will do the same thing in future. People fight all the time to change, recind, enact laws. The judicial system is a fluid, changing thing.

If this were a topic about Christians, I'd rattle on about how Christianity has no place in law. If this were a topic on Jews, I'd rattle on about how Judaism has no place in law. It's not, it's a topic on Islam, so I'm rattling on about how Islam has no place in law.

The judicial system changes, for sure. Not always for the better.

No, the Jewish tribunals use religious texts as well, and particular interpretations according to the orthodoxy of the community. Not Israeli secular law.

Below you stated that Muslim law would not supersede secular law as I predict it will (or at least, try to). This is what I meant here; Jewish tribunals do not and will not try to supersede secular law. I'm not so sure about Muslim 'courts'.

And no, you're making a false claim again. Their laws would not supercede our own. Our laws would always have the last say, were the outcome to be challenged in the courts. And the tribunals would deal with only specific, and limited aspects of family law, not all law. It would be no different than the religious arbitration experienced by Chrisitans and Jews.

It wasn't a claim, more of a prediction. I thought I was clear with the 'would have' part, I'm sorry. If there's anything to be learned from history, it's that people of Islam value the laws of their god more than any other. Which is fine. But they also built whole countries based on these laws, and I have strong beliefs that Muslim leaders are attempting to accomplish the same now that they have a presence in the West.



Quite frankly that religious ceremonies of any kind or of any faith have any bearing on the law whatsoever is distasteful to me, so you can imagine my thoughts on giving them even more sway.

Wasn't there a whole human rights case about a Nigerian woman, who was NOT a Muslim, who'd been convicted under Shari'a law as an adulteress and was to be stoned to death?

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/nigeria1023.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2116540.stm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAFR440082002

I'm sorry, I'd no sooner want a Catholic court to decide my future. Secular law is fine.

How's that exactly? If the agreement says in the case of a divorce, the women will lose custody of the children and forfeit any financial support, the field is not level. The courts don't make the decision based on gender, but the agreement may have been made with that thought in mind. Or not. Still, it stands. Arbitration is the same thing...the idea is that the parties involved can settle their disagreements based on the tenants of their shared religion. The other alternative is to do the same thing, in a secular manner, via a legal contract. In both cases, the courts are likely to abide by the consensual agreement made, regardless of whether that agreement was made based on gender or not.

Do you support Catholic and Jewish tribunals? How about native sentencing circles?
But do be aware that a prenupcial agreement can be nullified in court if the plaintif proves that any excessive inequalities written down were due to coercion from the defendant...and a prenupcial agreement made by a muslim couple would never hold up in a western court if comprising a obvious slant towards one of the parties

Interestingly enough, despite the current fundamentalism sweeping Islam, Islamic nations have traditionally dealt quite well with religious differences within their borders. Jews, Christians, Hindus were all allowed certain religious freedoms, which often extended to the laws that bound them. In fact, such is STILL the case in countries such as the United Arab Emirates. Muslims are governed by Shari'a law, but non-Muslims are not. Pluralism. And it's not inherently a bad thing.

But that isn't what is being discussed here. Not separate laws for separate people. The SAME laws for ALL people, with the possibility of culturally sensitive arbitration. There is no law that says, "In all cases of divorce, the woman will get the kids and be paid child support". All cases of divorce involve arbitration, unless that arbitration has already been decided upon in a prenuptual agreement. This is allowing the arbitration to happen outside the courts...but the final decision can STILL be appealed in the courts, and arbitrated there.

They can establish all the Sharia courts that they want, but they must be non-binding decisions. If they are allowed to issue legally-binding decisions, then we have just created a caste of Muslims in Europe. Go ask Israel what that is like. Ever wonder why religion is such a big issue there? They keep it in the mainstream by allowing each religion to establish its own court.

No, I don't think it's OK. But there are many things which I don't agree with which I must tolerate for the sake of freedom. Physical abuse, racist attacks and the like are all covered by other laws, so they are at no risk from any of these (well, they are at risk from them, the law is more of a punitive rather than preventative system). This law seems more like a 'pwease don't make me sad!' law than anything else. The fact that it accomplishes nothing is only the icing on the cake.

I value freedom of speech very highly myself. And there is a danger that this law could be abused if not written carefully - as could the arbitration system under discussion here. But I have a serious problem with any individual or organisation doing, saying or writing things that encourage others to act violently towards people of other religions. It isn't something that should be tolerated. Christians and Jews are protected under such laws already, I disagree with not allowing Muslims to be equally protected, or anyone of any faith.

It wasn't a claim, more of a prediction. I thought I was clear with the 'would have' part, I'm sorry. If there's anything to be learned from history, it's that people of Islam value the laws of their god more than any other. Which is fine. But they also built whole countries based on these laws, and I have strong beliefs that Muslim leaders are attempting to accomplish the same now that they have a presence in the West.

What leads you to this belief? I haven't seen any evidence of Muslims or Muslim leaders attempting to change laws in Britain, personally. And I seriously doubt that any reasonable Muslims have any desire to somehow conquer the so-called West from within, which is what you seem to be implying.

Surprised? Most people are. Clearly, people are not up in arms within the Jewish community over these tribunals. Jewish law has not replaced secular law. There isn't much to stop something like that in Germany for "historical" reasons. :D


RELIGION is a word I associate with repression of women...and yet and yet I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. As long as checks and balances are in place.Far as I can remember, the Quakers were pretty equal when it came to women and men... :p

Below you stated that Muslim law would not supersede secular law as I predict it will (or at least, try to). This is what I meant here; Jewish tribunals do not and will not try to supersede secular law. I'm not so sure about Muslim 'courts'.
And why are you so sure about the Jewish tribunals? To throw a wrench in your argument...how do you know that Jewish law is not superceding secular law? Maybe the decisions that are made are simply never challenged because of communal pressure. (one of the big problems I have with all such systems is the potential for abuse via pressure) And who is to say the orthodox Jews will not try to extend their powers in other directions? The Jews are no more inherently 'honest' than any other group.

It wasn't a claim, more of a prediction. I thought I was clear with the 'would have' part, I'm sorry. If there's anything to be learned from history, it's that people of Islam value the laws of their god more than any other. Which is fine. But they also built whole countries based on these laws, and I have strong beliefs that Muslim leaders are attempting to accomplish the same now that they have a presence in the West.
Ah, okay. And by the way, I'm a rabid atheist. This whole religious thing gets me itchy. But I can understand wanting to deal with issues based on shared culture. If a man and a woman want to separate, but have certain cultural issues with doing so, should they not work these issues out with members of their own community who understand the cultural difficulties? Catholics get religious counselling to deal with relationship breakdown...and many are encouraged to stick together no matter what. That isn't necessarily the most healthy solution, but it might be the culturally sound one, for them.

The biggest threat I see in this is the potential of cultural abuse, especially of women, and recent immigrants. Again, I feel the Jewish and Christian communities are settled enough to lesson this problem, as well as not having a large influx of very traditional, fundamentalist groups to alter the shape of their tribunals. Nonetheless, fundamentalism seems to be on the rise everywhere...and perhaps this IS currently a problem within Christian and Jewish communities, and we simply haven't heard about it.

I can speak more from the native perspective, which is a system I support, and feel is culturally sound as well as abiding by the laws.

Wasn't there a whole human rights case about a Nigerian woman, who was NOT a Muslim, who'd been convicted under Shari'a law as an adulteress and was to be stoned to death?

She was also acquited, was she not? But still....*shudders*. Nigeria is a good (or bad) example of how extreme Shari'a law can become.

Wasn't there a whole human rights case about a Nigerian woman, who was NOT a Muslim, who'd been convicted under Shari'a law as an adulteress and was to be stoned to death?

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/10/nigeria1023.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2116540.stm

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAFR440082002

I'm sorry, I'd no sooner want a Catholic court to decide my future. Secular law is fine.
Kat, I think you may have misunderstood. Forcing people to live under shari'a has resulted in many lost lives, but the first post seemed to be talking about something with a subtle but tangy difference.
This scholar suported such tribunals, but made clear that they would only trial specific issues-such as divorce cases-and would only be able to pass judgement if both parties in dispute consented to it.
I believe the question wasn't whether shari'a courts should decide everyone's future, it is whether people should be allowed to voluntarily choose to settle disputes with shari'a law.

I'm sorry, I'd no sooner want a Catholic court to decide my future. Secular law is fine.
But again..such a sentence would not be legal, or allowed if such a tribunal were to be set up. They would deal only with specific, and limited issues. No stonings.

But do be aware that a prenupcial agreement can be nullified in court if the plaintif proves that any excessive inequalities written down were due to coercion from the defendant...and a prenupcial agreement made by a muslim couple would never hold up in a western court if comprising a obvious slant towards one of the parties
So there is a bias against Muslims in the courts?

Because you can have a prenup that is clearly slanted against the woman, or man, and unless that contract is challenged, it will be upheld. Assuming that because the prenup is slanted against the woman, it was made under duress in the case of Muslims, is racist, and unfounded.

The decisions of the Shari'a tribunal ALSO can be contested and overturned.

They can establish all the Sharia courts that they want, but they must be non-binding decisions. If they are allowed to issue legally-binding decisions, then we have just created a caste of Muslims in Europe. Go ask Israel what that is like. Ever wonder why religion is such a big issue there? They keep it in the mainstream by allowing each religion to establish its own court.
If you're feeling left out, feel free to start up a 'whatever' panel, issue a non-binding decision, and then get it made binding by having a lawyer draw up a contract for you. It'll do the same thing. So. You're fine with that, but not with the other?

Far as I can remember, the Quakers were pretty equal when it came to women and men... :p
I didn't say my reaction was reasonable, or informed. :p

On the suject, just watch this interview - quite enlightening

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/05/hardtalk/choudary08aug.ram


(hope the link works, else you can open it from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/4135160.stm )

So there is a bias against Muslims in the courts?

Because you can have a prenup that is clearly slanted against the woman, or man, and unless that contract is challenged, it will be upheld. Assuming that because the prenup is slanted against the woman, it was made under duress in the case of Muslims, is racist, and unfounded.

The decisions of the Shari'a tribunal ALSO can be contested and overturned.
Come, come, i never said it was an automatic assumption...but you cant ignore that what thew general public knows of gender relations in the muslim law does borne out such prejudices...
still, i strongly believe that even if a muslim woman signs on her own volition such a inequal agreement, no western state must ever allow it to be carried through, or allow the instalment of muslim courts that will most certainly uphold such contrats.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No!

It should be the other way round: we need religion out of schools (Which verges on indoctrination regardless of religion) and Parliament where the C of E gets reserved seats.

I have no problem with organised religion, but it has no role in politics, law or education.

Come, come, i never said it was an automatic assumption...but you cant ignore that what thew general public knows of gender relations in the muslim law does borne out such prejudices...

still, i strongly believe that even if a muslim woman signs on her own volition such a inequal agreement, no western state must ever allow it to be carried through, or allow the instalment of muslim courts that will most certainly uphold such contrats.
Then you are singling out Muslim women simply because of their religion. If an atheist woman of Irish decent can sign, on her own violtion, such an inequal agreement and have it upheld, why are Muslim women suddenly incapable of doing the same? They are not children, or incompentent simply because of their religion.

This is my Church's opinion on the separation of church and state.

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship. (Doctrine & Covenants section 134:9-10)

I agree with this opinion, Religions should not be granted the power to try their members for civil crimes or offences, nor in any way be given power to adjudicate in civil matters. The legal powers of religions should be restrained to denying fellowship and/or membership in their religion, or sect thereof.

The rest of the section is also very interesting, one of the best discourses on the role and powers of government in relation to Religion, the just treatment of citizens, and the responsibilities of citizens to governments, that I have ever read.

you can read it, if you wish, by following this link:

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/134

Well, I agree. When you are part of a religion, either by joinging a community, or being born into it and STAYING in it, you should be held accountable by the norms of that particular community.

No wonder I choose NOT to be:).

Here is an article about shari'a law in Ontario (http://www.youmeworks.com/sharia_canada.html) (some of the uses of it, and opposition to it).

In theory, their decisions aren't supposed to conflict with Canadian civil law. But because there is no third-party oversight, and no duty to report decisions, no outsider will ever know if they do.

Does this not trouble others? Bothers me a lot.

[QUOTE=Sinuhue]Here is an article about shari'a law in Ontario (http://www.youmeworks.com/sharia_canada.html) (some of the uses of it, and opposition to it).



Does this not trouble others? Bothers me a lot.
Yup. It's the main reason I oppose it.

It makes me wonder though, how much third party oversight there is in Jewish and Christian tribunals.

She was also acquited, was she not? But still....*shudders*. Nigeria is a good (or bad) example of how extreme Shari'a law can become.

She was acquitted AFTER Amnesty International and other human rights organizations threw a spotlight onto the whole deal, and the rest of the world and their news organizations got involved.

Then you are singling out Muslim women simply because of their religion. If an atheist woman of Irish decent can sign, on her own violtion, such an inequal agreement and have it upheld, why are Muslim women suddenly incapable of doing the same? They are not children, or incompentent simply because of their religion.
No, but they are much more succeptible to peer and family pressure. You see, atheits women (or any other sort) living in a western country are subject only to secular law rule...in family and divorce affairs, for instance, western law recognizes strict equality between genders, in all matters. No prenup agreement binding a western couple would ever comprise difference of treatement based on gender, even being fully accepted by one of the spouses. This contract would be null and void, independently of the ratial or religious origin of the parties to the contract...what one allows when stablishing sharia courts is that muslim people inhabiting western societies can flount what these societies hold dearest -gender equality...theres simply some principles that everyone living in western societies mut abide by to reap the benefits of the good life..

She was acquitted AFTER Amnesty International and other human rights organizations threw a spotlight onto the whole deal, and the rest of the world and their news organizations got involved.
I realise that. It's still not an example that really has bearing on this discussion though.

Kat, I think you may have misunderstood. Forcing people to live under shari'a has resulted in many lost lives, but the first post seemed to be talking about something with a subtle but tangy difference.

I believe the question wasn't whether shari'a courts should decide everyone's future, it is whether people should be allowed to voluntarily choose to settle disputes with shari'a law.


The last link I gave was AI's report on what has been ruled under Sharia law. Sinuhue's own source stated that no outside party would oversee what goes on in these courts. I think the combination of both is a dangerous precedent.

Well, I agree. When you are part of a religion, either by joinging a community, or being born into it and STAYING in it, you should be held accountable by the norms of that particular community.

No wonder I choose NOT to be:).
Thats sure ecipe for disaster. Before someone is member of a particular community, he or she is a citizen of a country, and is prime object of allegiance must be the nation, and not he community...the problem, if you ask me, is that we have people who see themselves as muslim british and not primely as british muslim.

No, but they are much more succeptible to peer and family pressure. You see, atheits women (or any other sort) living in a western country are subject only to secular law rule...in family and divorce affairs, for instance, western law recognizes strict equality between genders, in all matters. No prenup agreement binding a western couple would ever comprise difference of treatement based on gender, even being fully accepted by one of the spouses.What a load of idealistic and blatantly false crap. I'm sorry, but being atheist, and Western, does not automatically make sexism go away. Cripes. It'd be lovely if that were true, but it isn't. Some Alpha Male wants his Western, Aethist, submissive wife to sign a prenup saying if they divorce, he gets the kids and never has to pay her a cent...that is based solely on Western, non-sexist values? :rolleyes:

Thats sure ecipe for disaster. Before someone is member of a particular community, he or she is a citizen of a country, and is prime object of allegiance must be the nation, and not he community...the problem, if you ask me, is that we have people who see themselves as muslim british and not primely as british muslim.
Hey, being held to cultural norms doesn't mean you have to abide by them. You can break out. If people in your town or community look down on your slutty attire, and call you to task for it, you can continue wearing it, and feeling their scorn, or dress more conservatively. Or you can move.

This is my Church's opinion on the separation of church and state.

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship. (Doctrine & Covenants section 134:9-10)

I agree with this opinion, Religions should not be granted the power to try their members for civil crimes or offences, nor in any way be given power to adjudicate in civil matters. The legal powers of religions should be restrained to denying fellowship and/or membership in their religion, or sect thereof.

The rest of the section is also very interesting, one of the best discourses on the role and powers of government in relation to Religion, the just treatment of citizens, and the responsibilities of citizens to governments, that I have ever read.

you can read it, if you wish, by following this link:

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/134
Been a while since I read the D&C, but about what I was going to post. I would extend it 2 ways for Islam. First, a ruling by the Sharia may extend to property, but if one chooses to adandon Islam the obligation imposed by the Sharia may not be enforced. Second this is justified as a central component ( he central?) of Islam is that is that faith must be voluntary and must be constantly reaffirmed, if one declares oneself unwilling to submit to the will of Allah, the laws of the which Allah has set for those who follow Him (Islamic law), the basis for all Sharia judgements, no longer apply to one.

And for all you history buffs, yes the D&C in it's current form has not always been followed by the LDS. Get over it, we are not talking of how things were years ago with the LDS, but how things are now.

I realise that. It's still not an example that really has bearing on this discussion though.

I'd say this example very MUCH has bearing on this discussion. The discussion is about setting up Sharia courts which are not overseen by neutral third parties as an alternative to secular courts in family decisions.

My opinion is based on the combination of a RL example of how Sharia law has been applied in the past, and the admitted lack of a third party neutral oversight into Sharia laws in Canada could lead to human rights abuses like the above taking place in your country and in the UK where such an idea is also being discussed.

I would hate to see Canada become a place where teen mothers can be whipped for having a child out of wedlock. That was another link on one of the sites I linked to. These are the things that Canada risks by allowing a church --any church -- the right to administer its own punishments for family problems.

Shall we go back to having people put into the stocks? Pilloried? Having their tongue cut out for being gossips? All lovely things that Christian laws allowed in theocratic states.

Sorry -- I'm religious and I cannot condone this, no matter what religious laws are involved.

What a load of idealistic and blatantly false crap. I'm sorry, but being atheist, and Western, does not automatically make sexism go away. Cripes. It'd be lovely if that were true, but it isn't. Some Alpha Male wants his Western, Aethist, submissive wife to sign a prenup saying if they divorce, he gets the kids and never has to pay her a cent...that is based solely on Western, non-sexist values? :rolleyes:
well,in my own country such clauses have never been writteen in prenups, letalone upheld in court.

If you're feeling left out, feel free to start up a 'whatever' panel, issue a non-binding decision, and then get it made binding by having a lawyer draw up a contract for you. It'll do the same thing. So. You're fine with that, but not with the other?
It's better than what's being proposed. At the very least, it keeps these tribunals where they belong: as part of the law, not the only law.

Should Sharia be applied in the UK?

Absolutely. No question about that.

The oppressed muslims of Britain should be given their rights.

A seperate electorate for muslims should be allowed to protect their rights of self-determination.

If the non-muslim Britishers are still bigotted and are against this fundamental rights of muslims, then UK should be partitioned to protect the muslims from the bigotted non-muslims who are sure to oppress the muslims because they are in majority.

After all, what's fair for the goose (India) is fair for the gander too (UK). :p

Of course, we will have to wait until the muslim population gets to the 30% mark for that to happen. The 30% rule never fails. Meanwhile let me enjoy the stiff upper lips pontificating....

Should Sharia be applied in the UK?

Absolutely. No question about that.

The oppressed muslims of Britain should be given their rights.

A seperate electorate for muslims should be allowed to protect their rights of self-determination.

If the non-muslim Britishers are still bigotted and are against this fundamental rights of muslims, then UK should be partitioned to protect the muslims from the bigotted non-muslims who are sure to oppress the muslims because they are in majority.

After all, what's fair for the goose (India) is fair for the gander too (UK). :p

Of course, we will have to wait until the muslim population gets to the 30% mark for that to happen. The 30% rule never fails. Meanwhile let me enjoy the stiff upper lips pontificating....
Hmm, Pakistan, BI? Sure let them have Wales, but what about Cornwall where the population is split pretty much 50/50? Will there be a real war over Cornwall, or will it just be a war ala Kashmir, or perhaps it wll even go nuclear. Sure, the whole India/Pakistan thing has gone so well, I see it as a perfect model for the UK.

I would hate to see Canada become a place where teen mothers can be whipped for having a child out of wedlock. That was another link on one of the sites I linked to. These are the things that Canada risks by allowing a church --any church -- the right to administer its own punishments for family problems.
No. Once again, the powers of this tribunal can not extend that far. They can not legally contravene existing laws which make such assault illegal.

Now, were it to happen because there was no oversight, this would be a problem. But it would still NOT BE LEGAL. Just as it would not be legal, if an unofficial tribunal sentenced a woman with whipping.

Shall we go back to having people put into the stocks? Pilloried? Having their tongue cut out for being gossips? All lovely things that Christian laws allowed in theocratic states.

Strawman Kat.

well,in my own country such clauses have never been writteen in prenups, letalone upheld in court.
Never? Really. What country do you live in? And how could you possibly know that such prenups have NEVER been written or upheld?

It's better than what's being proposed. At the very least, it keeps these tribunals where they belong: as part of the law, not the only law.
Nor would they be the only law...a point I've brought up a number of times already. But if you, and others, wish to make up your own version of what the tribunals would entail, I guess I won't bother trying to stop you.

...This scholar suported such tribunals, but made clear that they would only trial specific issues-such as divorce cases-and would only be able to pass judgement if both parties in dispute consented to it...

Essentially he's saying that people should have the option settle out of court in favor of a third-party arbitration that happened to be religous in nature. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see. In fact, I don't see what's to stop it from existing already. Just as long as the actual court system isn't involved.

It obviously couldn't apply in criminal cases as one of the claiments would be the government, which would not agree to submit to the judgement of a third party.

Nor would they be the only law...a point I've brought up a number of times already. But if you, and others, wish to make up your own version of what the tribunals would entail, I guess I won't bother trying to stop you.Since the OP asked:So, how do you regard this issue? Should sharia courts, under this terms (or any others) -be allowed in Britain, or any other western country?--bold mine

I thought alternatives to the proposal were on the table. Did I miss the post when the discusion was restricted to the proposed form?

It obviously couldn't apply in criminal cases as one of the claiments would be the government, which would not agree to submit to the judgement of a third party.
Sorry, I just wanted to highlight this again, so it's not just me bringing up the obvious over and over.

Should Sharia be applied in the UK?

Absolutely. No question about that.

The oppressed muslims of Britain should be given their rights.

A seperate electorate for muslims should be allowed to protect their rights of self-determination.

If the non-muslim Britishers are still bigotted and are against this fundamental rights of muslims, then UK should be partitioned to protect the muslims from the bigotted non-muslims who are sure to oppress the muslims because they are in majority.

After all, what's fair for the goose (India) is fair for the gander too (UK). :p

Of course, we will have to wait until the muslim population gets to the 30% mark for that to happen. The 30% rule never fails. Meanwhile let me enjoy the stiff upper lips pontificating....

How very sad. I suppose you're trying to make some sort of point.

Since the OP asked:--bold mine

I thought alternatives to the proposal were on the table. Did I miss the post when the discusion was restricted to the proposed form?

If you want to talk about other forms of it, be clear. That didn't seem to be what the OP was discussing however, and I truly don't see the point in discussing Shari'a law in terms that fall outside of the proposal since Shari'a law can vary so widely. Saying, "no, we shouldn't do this in the UK because in Nigeria they..." is truly not productive, nor does it address the initial question. Nigerian Shari'a law is NOT being proposed in the UK.

No. Once again, the powers of this tribunal can not extend that far. They can not legally contravene existing laws which make such assault illegal.

Now, were it to happen because there was no oversight, this would be a problem. But it would still NOT BE LEGAL. Just as it would not be legal, if an unofficial tribunal sentenced a woman with whipping.

Strawman Kat.

I don't understand why you consider giving examples of how religious laws of the past have been human rights abuses, a strawman. I provided examples both of Sharia law as practiced elsewhere which refutes what you have said -- that it applies ONLY to Muslims with you using the UAE as an example of how wonderful it is while I mentioned the abuses in Nigeria to point out it's not all fair and wonderful, and additionally, that there have been abuses under other religious systems of the past as well, to point out that ANY theocratic law system, not just Sharia, can be abused, ESPECIALLY if it is not being overseen.

The crux of the problem IS that if there is no oversight, then this system becomes a law unto itself. When there are no checks and balances, there is the danger of abuse.

Never? Really. What country do you live in? And how could you possibly know that such prenups have NEVER been written or upheld?
Because gender relations between spouses are laid down in our Civil code...they impose absolute equality of rights and duties, are mandatory and cannot be altered in any way by the spouses, even by agreement; likewise to matters pertaining guardianship of children of the couple; these cannot be subject to bargaining by the parents in prenups...prenups in my countries seve almost exclusively to regulate property issues during the marriage.Prenups, after being established by the spouses, are then certified by a public clerk, who can -and must-refuse them if the clauses violate any of the legal limits.
My country is Portugal and i know this because until very recently i´ve practised law as a lawyer.

Sharia Law should not apply to anyone in Britain. Residence in Britain should mean that you respect British laws. This is completely ridiculous. We may not have a perfect legal system and it may sometimes may mistakes, but it is unacceptable for any group in it to have their own laws to live by. It would lead to yet further ethnic tension.

I don't understand why you consider giving examples of how religious laws of the past have been human rights abuses, a strawman.
Because Shari'a law as an actual judicial system is not the topic here. I'd have no problem dissecting the ills of Shari'a as a total judicial system, but neither the proposal in the UK or Canada is considering such a thing. Nor is this a case of a 'slippery slope' where opening the door to these tribunals would somehow allow Shari'a to supercede our own laws.


I provided examples both of Sharia law as practiced elsewhere which refutes what you have said -- that it applies ONLY to Muslims (Nigeria proved that) I never said that Shari'a law only ever applied to Muslims. I was pointing out that plurality in judicial systems has and still does exist. But again, that isn't what we're really talking about here...though it would be an interesting topic on its own.

and additionally, that there have been abuses under other religious systems of the past as well, to point out that ANY theocratic law system can be abused, ESPECIALLY if it is not being overseen. Of course. And I totally agree. But when we talk about lack of oversight in this case, we are STILL not talking about allowing illegal practices to become legal. Nor are we talking about a total lack of knowledge as to exactly what is being adjudicated in these courts. They are not going to be trying murders, or rapes, or fraud, or handing out punishments like the ones you have brought up. Not legally. And if they WERE doing these things, it would be found out in time, and no doubt the entire system brought up for review.

The stage this is at right now does not have anything in place for oversight. The Jewish and Catholic systems do. There are plans to integrate something similar into a Muslim tribunal.

That being said, I still don't support it. But that is based on things OTHER than believing it's going to turn into public stonings, or a total theocracy for the Muslim community. None of which is an actual possibility.

The crux of the problem IS that if there is no oversight, then Sharia law becomes a law unto itself. When there are no checks and balances, there is the danger of abuse. Domestic laws exist to balance, and check the system. There are actually MANY checks and balances...but in my mind, not yet ENOUGH for such a system to be safely allowed. More direct oversight (a review of ALL cases for example) is needed.

Because gender relations between spouses are laid down in our Civil code...they impose absolute equality of rights and duties, are mandatory and cannot be altered in any way by the spouses, even by agreement; Again...where do you live? Absolute equalities of rights and duties? What are you talking about here? Duties...like couples MUST share 50/50 the chores? Or what? What framework are you working from?


likewise to matters pertaining guardianship of children of the couple; these cannot be subject to bargaining by the parents in prenups I can't really argue with you if I have no idea what nation you're talking about, or what laws govern you. In Canada, (though it's rare) you absolutely can decide before the marriage, or during the marriage, or even during negotiations when you are in the process of divorcing (arbitration and mediation are ENCOURAGED as opposed to court imposed decisions) where the kids go if the contract is broken.

..prenups in my countries seve almost exclusively to regulate property issues during the marriage.Prenups, after being established by the spouses, are then certified by a public clerk, who can -and must-refuse them if the clauses violate any of the legal limits.
My country is Portugal and i know this because until very recently i´ve practised law as a lawyer.
Ah, finally. Portugal. Well, I don't really know much about your laws. So of course, a Shari'a tribunal would be set up differently in your country (were it to be set up at all) than it would in mine, or the UK (a nation with which my country shares many laws, as our laws are based heavily on English and French commonlaw).

So really, both of us are correct. Our laws are different.

Sharia Law should not apply to anyone in Britain. Residence in Britain should mean that you respect British laws. This is completely ridiculous. We may not have a perfect legal system and it may sometimes may mistakes, but it is unacceptable for any group in it to have their own laws to live by. It would lead to yet further ethnic tension.
*does a tap dance and sings....* "but what about the Jewish tribunals, oh....what about the Catholic tribunals, oh....better get rid of them all, oh...or be called bigoted, oh....*

I think a lot of people are just NOW realising that such tribunals already exist...but they never had their attention drawn to it until now. So...scrap them all? Or just deny the Muslims?

If you want to talk about other forms of it, be clear. That didn't seem to be what the OP was discussing however, and I truly don't see the point in discussing Shari'a law in terms that fall outside of the proposal since Shari'a law can vary so widely. Saying, "no, we shouldn't do this in the UK because in Nigeria they..." is truly not productive, nor does it address the initial question. Nigerian Shari'a law is NOT being proposed in the UK.
Actually I think it is quite important to consider alterations to the proposal, if people have objections to the proposal there may be ways to meet thier objections which while different than the current proposal would also satisfy the desire of muslims for Sharia law. One of the things that has me thinking along these lines was the earlier objection to those ignorant of their rights to refuse Sharia rulings being pressured into accepting them.

I was originally thinking that instead of a simple agreement to be subject to Islamic law, it would be best to put an officer of the civil court in the Sharia court, charged with ensuring that the assent was voluntary and informed. Upon reflection that doesn't seem strong enough, I propose that one may only assent to the Sharia having jurisdiction before a magistrate in the magistrate's court, and the magistrate shall be entrusted with ensuring that the person assenting is both knowledgable of the alternative civil procedure and not under undue coercion to assent, and shall be empowered to investigate those issues. This is not the proposal at hand, but given the nature of Islamic culture being imported to the UK, it seems like a reasonable safeguard which hopefully can be reduced to a formality in the future.

*does a tap dance and sings....* "but what about the Jewish tribunals, oh....what about the Catholic tribunals, oh....better get rid of them all, oh...or be called bigoted, oh....*

I think a lot of people are just NOW realising that such tribunals already exist...but they never had their attention drawn to it until now. So...scrap them all? Or just deny the Muslims?

Scrap them all. They are all unacceptable. People in Britain should all be governed with one law. Im a secular Catholic and I see no reason why there should be any sort of Catholic tribunals in this country. All such schemes that exist should be stopped immediately.

I was originally thinking that instead of a simple agreement to be subject to Islamic law, it would be best to put an officer of the civil court in the Sharia court, charged with ensuring that the assent was voluntary and informed. Upon reflection that doesn't seem strong enough, I propose that one may only assent to the Sharia having jurisdiction before a magistrate in the magistrate's court, and the magistrate shall be entrusted with ensuring that the person assenting is both knowledgable of the alternative civil procedure and not under undue coercion to assent, and shall be empowered to investigate those issues. This is not the proposal at hand, but given the nature of Islamic culture being imported to the UK, it seems like a reasonable safeguard which hopefully can be reduced to a formality in the future.
Agreed. It would be nice to have secular oversight as well, to ensure that these safeguards are ALWAYS being met. I don't see that as onerous. There would likely be a central set of tribunals...not just random ones all over the place, so someone hired to do this seems reasonable. I think the community should be paying their salary as well.

Scrap them all. They are all unacceptable. People in Britain should all be governed with one law. Im a secular Catholic and I see no reason why there should be any sort of Catholic tribunals in this country. All such schemes that exist should be stopped immediately.
So scrap the official ones.

There is no way you could scrap the unofficial ones. Because they help in mediations between separated spouses, estranged children and other family members, member in the community in crisis, etc. Their influence will still be there, though not necessarily in an official capacity.

One thing I don't think people are taking into account is this: family law is about negotiation. The courts are loathe to hand down judgement with no input from the parties affected. You don't just go in, tight lipped, disagreeing on every point, expecting the courts to make the decisions for you. It involves dialogue, and mediation if necessary. That mediation will still occur within a cultural, and religious context, and will still affect the outcome.

So scrap the official ones.

There is no way you could scrap the unofficial ones. Because they help in mediations between separated spouses, estranged children and other family members, member in the community in crisis, etc. Their influence will still be there, though not necessarily in an official capacity.

One thing I don't think people are taking into account is this: family law is about negotiation. The courts are loathe to hand down judgement with no input from the parties affected. You don't just go in, tight lipped, disagreeing on every point, expecting the courts to make the decisions for you. It involves dialogue, and mediation if necessary. That mediation will still occur within a cultural, and religious context, and will still affect the outcome.

Yes that's fair enough. But I do honestly believe that it should be an offence to advocate laws or civil coeds other to those of Britain within the country. Religion should not be an important part of legal decisions. Sharia Law should have absolutely no bearing upon any family within this country, as it is a rather backwards code which, if tolerated, would see Britain go backwards. It should be highlighted that communities are judging their own people in this way, as we all know that it is happening, and anyone found to be doing so must be severely reprimanded.

Yes that's fair enough. But I do honestly believe that it should be an offence to advocate laws or civil coeds other to those of Britain within the country. Religion should not be an important part of legal decisions. Sharia Law should have absolutely no bearing upon any family within this country, as it is a rather backwards code which, if tolerated, would see Britain go backwards. It should be highlighted that communities are judging their own people in this way, as we all know that it is happening, and anyone found to be doing so must be severely reprimanded.
What you're essentially talking about is limiting the freedom of religion, speech and thought, all in one fell swoop, and frankly, I can't support that.

If by your moral code, based on your religion, or your culture, women should be subservient, and men dominant, I may disagree vehemently with you, but you have the right to believe that. You have the right to fuck up your kids with this weird way of thinking. They have the right to flip you off at the age of majority, join a commune, and have lots of casual sex. You have the right to disown them, try to pressure them into returning to the fold, and they have the right to give in or not.

Now, when we start getting into issues of honour killings, or crimes committed in the name of culture or religion, it's a whole different kettle of fish. But trying to outlaw culture and religious influence is draconian...and likely to fail.

People judge. And if neighbours get together at the request of a couple in crisis, and are asked to mediate, how is that your business? If no crime (an unlawful punishment or decision for example) is committed, how could you possibly say this should be illegal? It happens all the time in other communities, and the people in those communities know about it, request it, and often abide by it. It's no different than HIRING an arbitrator to help you solve a dispute you can't get out of yourself. Well...actually it is a bit different...because the arbitrator you hire may not understand what is culturally acceptable to you.

If people didn't want to be part of communities, they wouldn't be. But many of us LIKE our communities, abide by the norms of our communities, and at the root of all our beliefs, as communal people. If my community wants me to abide by a decision they make, I will, unless I simply can not. In that case, I will leave the community.

It's interesting to note that if you Google Shari'a law in Canada (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sharia+law+in+canada) that nothing on the first page supports it. In fact, all the hits are cases being made AGAINST it.

Do the same for Native sentencing circles (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=native+sentencing+circles) and rabbinical courts (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rabbinical+courts+in+canada&spell=1) and the results are not nearly so negative.

I managed to find an article (http://www.quran.ca/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=163) from the supporters of Shari'a tribunals. Some highlights from the article:

At no other time have Ontario courts been as backlogged as today, wrote Ontario's auditor in his October 2003 report. The sentiment was echoed by Ontario's chief justices at the 2004 opening session of the provincial court. Given the situation, one would expect that anything that may ease the backlog would be welcome.

Right wing commentators and news outlets had a field day. "Canadian judges soon will be enforcing Islamic law...such as stoning women caught in adultery," screamed one headline. Another read "Canada Allowing Sharia Barbaric Laws?" Even the usually sober Globe and Mail got in on it with a front page story titled "Tribunal will apply Islamic Law in Ontario."

Other communities have successfully implemented ADR procedures with much less fanfare and scrutiny. For instance, rabbinical courts or Beth Din's dealing with business and matrimonial issues have been functioning for some time in North America.

The existing Canadian legal framework allows parties to civil, family and religious disputes to opt for ADR and thereby resolve their differences using their own parameters be it religious or otherwise in a more feasible and culturally acceptable manner. This trend toward ADR will greatly benefit the general public by easing the burden on the judicial system and saving tax dollars.

Of course, contrary to the impression left by some misinformed observers, any decision rendered by a tribunal or a panel of mediators would be subject to appeal to the courts and would have to be consistent with the supreme law of the land, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Compounding the problem is the fact that there is virtually no formal certification process to designate someone as being qualified to interpret Islamic law. As it stands today, anyone can get away with making rulings so long as they have the appearance of piety and a group of followers. There are numerous institutions across the country churning out graduates as alims (scholars), faqihs (jurists) or muftis (Juris-consults) without fully imparting the subtleties of Islamic jurisprudence. Many are unfortunately more influenced by cultural worldviews and clearly take a male centered approach.

Those expending their energy campaigning against this initiative outright would help their cause more by offering constructive input to help set parameters and develop a transparent and just process.

Nor would they be the only law...a point I've brought up a number of times already. But if you, and others, wish to make up your own version of what the tribunals would entail, I guess I won't bother trying to stop you.
Competing judicial systems just don't work. Who will have precedense over whom? Would people shop around for an optimal law, like they would for butter, or computers?

Competing judicial systems just don't work. Who will have precedense over whom? Would people shop around for an optimal law, like they would for butter, or computers?
1. Domestic laws would always have precedence.
2. Shari'a tribunals would only be used by Muslims who consent to arbitration by the tribunal. Binding rulings could be contested in the regular courts.

1. Domestic laws would always have precedence.
2. Shari'a tribunals would only be used by Muslims who consent to arbitration by the tribunal. Binding rulings could be contested in the regular courts.
Like you said earlier, they are binding because of contract agreements. I agree with that. It means that these Sharia experts will never be above the law.

Like you said earlier, they are binding because of contract agreements. I agree with that. It means that these Sharia experts will never be above the law.
That's right. And thank you for making that important distinction. They are not passing laws. They are creating contracts, which can not contravene existing laws.

I wonder what other kinds of informal arbitrations go on in various ethnic communities...it'd be interesting to see which communities take this approach and which have no avenue for intervention in family matters.

Should sharia courts, under this terms (or any others) -be allowed in Britain, or any other western country?
No.

No.
Okay, I waited...but I have to ask....in your opinion, why not?

since when is the uk secular I thought they had a state church and whatnot

Of course, the same sort of things could be going on in Jewish tribunals...but Jewish women are somewhat more settled in our country, and tend to not be as shy about using the court system to dispute a tribunal judgement. Those most at risk for being pressured into Shari'a arbitration are women, and new immigrants. I'd have to say, I'm not wild about the idea. I think the Shari'a arbitrators should be able to suggest, but not bind.
I'm utterly against Sharia law. Our ancestors did not die fighting for women's rights just to have them taken away by religious whims - even at the behest of "liberal" governments!

Okay, I waited...but I have to ask....in your opinion, why not?
Separation of church and state. Asp[ects of Sharia law also contradict human rights agreements, as Fass pointed out.

I'm utterly against Sharia law. Our ancestors did not die fighting for women's rights just to have them taken away by religious whims - even at the behest of "liberal" governments!


Separation of church and state. Asp[ects of Sharia law also contradict human rights agreements, as Fass pointed out.Then...in the spirit of separation of church and state...are you for banning the rabbinical councils? Where would native sentencing circles fit in (applying only to the US and Canada right now)?

Then...in the spirit of separation of church and state...are you for banning the rabbinical councils? Where would native sentencing circles fit in (applying only to the US and Canada right now)?
Are sentencing circles legal in the US? I know there is a seperate native legal system, but that is based on the dual soverignity of the aboriginal nations - a different issue entirely than Sharia law. Last I heard sentencing circles weren't officially part of the Native American (US) legal system.

What you're essentially talking about is limiting the freedom of religion, speech and thought, all in one fell swoop, and frankly, I can't support that.

If by your moral code, based on your religion, or your culture, women should be subservient, and men dominant, I may disagree vehemently with you, but you have the right to believe that. You have the right to fuck up your kids with this weird way of thinking. They have the right to flip you off at the age of majority, join a commune, and have lots of casual sex. You have the right to disown them, try to pressure them into returning to the fold, and they have the right to give in or not.

Now, when we start getting into issues of honour killings, or crimes committed in the name of culture or religion, it's a whole different kettle of fish. But trying to outlaw culture and religious influence is draconian...and likely to fail.

People judge. And if neighbours get together at the request of a couple in crisis, and are asked to mediate, how is that your business? If no crime (an unlawful punishment or decision for example) is committed, how could you possibly say this should be illegal? It happens all the time in other communities, and the people in those communities know about it, request it, and often abide by it. It's no different than HIRING an arbitrator to help you solve a dispute you can't get out of yourself. Well...actually it is a bit different...because the arbitrator you hire may not understand what is culturally acceptable to you.

If people didn't want to be part of communities, they wouldn't be. But many of us LIKE our communities, abide by the norms of our communities, and at the root of all our beliefs, as communal people. If my community wants me to abide by a decision they make, I will, unless I simply can not. In that case, I will leave the community.
The problem with your approach is that by upholding freedom of religion to an absolute standing leads to formation of cultural and religious ghetos in the midst of western society. People feel that they are entitled to set up communities insulated from the rest of the natio because (at least that´s the official multiculturalist creed) because one places such a high value on cultural diveersity. It is as if the countries that harbour such emigres must allow these to do as they wish. When one goes to a new country, one knows that he has to respect the laws of the land. For instance, if my girlfriend and i visit Saudi Arabia, i know that she´ll have to wear a veil when in public. I also know that i won´t be allowed to attend Mass in Ryhad, as Christianism (and all other religions besides Whahabism) are banned in the country. I know all this and will abide by the laws of the land. Why should it be any different with muslim emmigres in Britain?

Simple answer to a horrible question....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Absolutely no religion should be allowed such a 'foot in the door' with regards to courts of any kind. Just because you 'believe' something does not entitle you to special privilages before the law.

Interestingly enough, despite the current fundamentalism sweeping Islam, Islamic nations have traditionally dealt quite well with religious differences within their borders. Jews, Christians, Hindus were all allowed certain religious freedoms, which often extended to the laws that bound them. In fact, such is STILL the case in countries such as the United Arab Emirates. Muslims are governed by Shari'a law, but non-Muslims are not. Pluralism. And it's not inherently a bad thing.
<snip>
(From here (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24464.htm))
Non-Muslims are tried for criminal offenses in Shari'a courts. Not all crimes are punishable by Shari'a penalties. In cases punishable by Shari'a penalty, non-Muslims may receive civil penalties at the discretion of the judge, which generally occurs. Shari'a penalties imposed on non-Muslims also may be overturned or modified by a higher court.

If you want the laws of your country to apply to you then stay in your country. When you go to a different country you should accept that you are going somewhere where the legal system will be different and if you don't like it then don't go there.
Although I could see California trying that... that state would be very happy to accept a legal system part of some country other than the US. Lord knows we're certainly just the state's secondary country anyway...