Post by: Manedwolf on February 07, 2008, 11:57:56 AM
"Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."
Quote
Archbishop sparks Sharia law row
Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury's belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable".
Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".
The Tories called the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful" and the Lib Dems said all must abide by the rule of law.
Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
'Changes'
But the prime minister's official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia law be applied in a civil case.
He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."
And Culture Secretary Andy Burnham told BBC One's Question Time: "This isn't a path down which we should go.
"You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other," he said, adding this would be "chaos".
For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful".
"Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other," she told BBC News 24. "That is unacceptable."
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.
"Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another.
"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."
Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous".
"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings," he said.
"There is a fundamental principle here when you appear before a court in Britain you appear as a citizen, equal to any other and you should be treated equally to any other."
'Sensational'
Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he said "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue.
He stressed that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
Multiculturalism 'divisive'
Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and the Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance".
He added: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success. I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."
Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth."
He added: "Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."
But Mark Pritchard, Tory MP for the Wrekin, in Shropshire, said the archbishop's comments were "naive and shocking" and he accused him of "pseudo-theological appeasement".
He said: "The archbishop should be standing up for our Judeo-Christian principles that underpin British criminal law that have been hard fought for.
"He should be concentrating on winning souls into the Church of England rather than getting involved in politics."
Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury's belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems "unavoidable".
Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".
The Tories called the archbishop's remarks "unhelpful" and the Lib Dems said all must abide by the rule of law.
Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
'Changes'
But the prime minister's official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia law be applied in a civil case.
He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.
Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."
And Culture Secretary Andy Burnham told BBC One's Question Time: "This isn't a path down which we should go.
"You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other," he said, adding this would be "chaos".
For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said the archbishop's comments were "unhelpful".
"Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other," she told BBC News 24. "That is unacceptable."
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.
"Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another.
"There is a huge difference between respecting people's right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law."
Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous".
"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings," he said.
"There is a fundamental principle here when you appear before a court in Britain you appear as a citizen, equal to any other and you should be treated equally to any other."
'Sensational'
Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he said "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouded the issue.
He stressed that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
Multiculturalism 'divisive'
Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and the Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance".
He added: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success. I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."
Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth."
He added: "Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."
But Mark Pritchard, Tory MP for the Wrekin, in Shropshire, said the archbishop's comments were "naive and shocking" and he accused him of "pseudo-theological appeasement".
He said: "The archbishop should be standing up for our Judeo-Christian principles that underpin British criminal law that have been hard fought for.
"He should be concentrating on winning souls into the Church of England rather than getting involved in politics."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7233335.stm
Multicultural Express, now leaving King's Cross on the track of good intentions, destination hell.
Perhaps this archbishop should take a look at how well that sharia thing has worked for the dysfunctional post-civilization pits it's moved into before...
A foreign woman was just arrested for sitting next to a male colleague in a Saudi Arabia Starbucks. UK in 20 years?
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 07, 2008, 12:07:34 PM
On another note, history does not support compromises with Islam.
Post by: Balog on February 07, 2008, 12:26:05 PM
Post by: Iain on February 07, 2008, 01:46:36 PM
It seems what he is suggesting is only a slight expansion of a system that already exists. The issues involved would be limited, and there are already courts dealing with religious and civil matters, such as the London Beth Din. Them be Jews by the way.
Quote
The Beth Din is the most formally entrenched of these minority courts. The UK's main Beth Din is based in Finchley, north London.
It oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.
The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.
This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.
Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stmIt oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.
The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.
This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.
Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process.
So it would seem there is legal precedent. That will not prevent rantings about chopping off hands and hanging rape victims, nor will it prevent the invoking of the slippery slope.
Yes, I'm working on my thread killing skills. It seems if you predict the path a thread will take almost everyone is loathe to prove you right.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 07, 2008, 02:19:17 PM
There can be no equality before the law or cultural cohesion when some laws apply to some people but not others within the same country. Also, who decides what "reasonable" means? Some liberal judge ready to capitulate before multiculturalism and pathological sensitivity? Who exactly will benefit in the long run from all this garbage? If some people do not wish to live under the law of the land, why are they migrating to the UK? Why don't they just stay in whichever islamic toilet they come from?
Excessive tolerance and accomodation will be the end of Western Civilization.
And, His Eminence should really STFU because even if he were right about a political issue, it is not his place to comment on it publicly, at least so long as he holds his post.
Post by: seeker_two on February 07, 2008, 02:27:57 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 07, 2008, 05:41:58 PM
When I tell my British and Australian friends I have 5 guns, they act like it's an arsenal and ask why I need so many guns. They think nothing of having to having to register pellet (IIRC) guns and having to belong to a club to own them.
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 07, 2008, 05:50:14 PM
Quote
Iain, no rational person can believe that this "law within the law" and "country within the country" can possibly result in anything good, especially when the host and the invader cultures are so different in critical ways. Do not blame us for seeing what this really is - a bloody awful idea.
Y'know, as much as I disagree with the successful Islamic invasion/takeover of Europe that is underway, I have to disagree with this statement. We live with systems of laws within laws. It's called Federal law and state law. We also have communities that practice their own law, including Jews. My father resolved several business and contract issues through a beis din (aka beit din). Catholics follow Canon Law (well, sometimes) which is usually a personal, devotional thing, but does affect interaction between people as well, although less so in the current era than historically, partly because Christianity is at least a major source of our current culture and law.
Historically speaking, before geographic nation-states, people followed the rule of their tribe or clan or family. Interactions between them affected far fewer disputes; most disputes arise among people who are in close contact with each other: hence family courts and probate courts, a *huge* proportion of the work American courts of various kinds perform.
I don't see why the British gov't should be involved though. If Muslims want to follow Sharia law among themselves, that is fine. Jews do it, and have done it, for centuries. Muslims may be more accustomed to living in theocracies of their own faith, and so are familiar with gov't-imposed Sharia law, but they should just learn to adapt and set up their own courts. And their law would have to operate within the bounds of British law.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 07, 2008, 06:06:25 PM
It doesn't sound like that's what they want to do, though. I sounds like they want two separate sets of laws, for two separate classes of people.
That can't possibly end well.
Post by: Bigjake on February 07, 2008, 06:54:20 PM
Quote
don't expect many will attempt to understand what he is saying, they'll only hear 'sharia' (and 'muslim') and expose their own prejudices.
It seems what he is suggesting is only a slight expansion of a system that already exists. The issues involved would be limited, and there are already courts dealing with religious and civil matters, such as the London Beth Din. Them be Jews by the way.
It seems what he is suggesting is only a slight expansion of a system that already exists. The issues involved would be limited, and there are already courts dealing with religious and civil matters, such as the London Beth Din. Them be Jews by the way.
I'm pretty sure Beth Din doesn't regularly sentence women to death by beheading or stoning for moronic, 8th century offences...
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 07, 2008, 07:41:11 PM
I'm pretty sure Beth Din doesn't regularly sentence women to death by beheading or stoning for moronic, 8th century offences...
Precisely. It is a question of inherent incompatibilities issuing from different cultures. Whether it is Catholic or Jewish sublaw, so long as its spirit and general values are compatible with the common law, it is essentially the same law system with subsections differing semantically.
By contrast, when you have the host and invader differing almost diametrically on important issues, there can be no good end to it. That is why the given definition of "so long as it is reasonable" is just bloody awful stupid. The resolution of a conflict is not the difference between 20 and 21 lashes, or 10 or 11 days in prison. For some offenses the spread is astronomical.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 07, 2008, 08:21:28 PM
Yes, I'm working on my thread killing skills. It seems if you predict the path a thread will take almost everyone is loathe to prove you right.
Is that how that works? More and more, I have come to appreciate those who throw cold water on my fellow conservatives when we get all in a froth about certain things. The local Lutheran radio station does that, too.
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 07, 2008, 08:29:00 PM
Quote
Whether it is Catholic or Jewish sublaw, so long as its spirit and general values are compatible with the common law, it is essentially the same law system with subsections differing semantically.
I can assure you, from extensive personal experience and long study, that Canon law, Halacha/Jewish law, and American or English common law are *vastly* different from each other in a myriad of ways. Semantics barely begins to scratch the surface of the ocean of differences. Or maybe I'm just a law geek.
I concur that Islamic law seems largely incompatible with British law. I also think the Muslim invasion is frankly frightening. But other cultures manage to get their legal systems to work within their communities without violating too many laws of the sovereign state. I think they oughta figure it out. Obviously, that is not what is called for in the link, or the Archbishop wouldn't be involved.
Post by: De Selby on February 07, 2008, 10:24:35 PM
He does realize that, under Sharia law,he's a dead man. Right?......
Huh? Why is this?
Where did you read "sharia law" such that you learned what its conclusions are?
Post by: De Selby on February 07, 2008, 10:27:06 PM
I'm pretty sure Beth Din doesn't regularly sentence women to death by beheading or stoning for moronic, 8th century offences...
Precisely. It is a question of inherent incompatibilities issuing from different cultures. Whether it is Catholic or Jewish sublaw, so long as its spirit and general values are compatible with the common law, it is essentially the same law system with subsections differing semantically.
In what way is Jewish law different from Islamic law?
If you translated both into the same language and removed the obvious markers like names and verse numbers, I seriously doubt anyone but highly trained jurists in either tradition could even tell the difference.
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
Post by: Iain on February 07, 2008, 10:37:33 PM
... but they should just learn to adapt and set up their own courts. And their law would have to operate within the bounds of British law.
Precisely, therefore the courts would be limited to civil matters and would only apply to those who agreed to submit to the judgement of the court. Therefore if I have a dispute with my Jewish landlord I am not bound to go through the Beth Din if that was his preferred court, we'd end up in a normal British court. He has a dispute with a Jewish tenant and they both agree to the Beth Din then the judgement of the Beth Din is binding...
...with the proviso that the judgement of the Beth Din has to be 'reasonable' as far as British law is concerned. Reasonable would imply legal - therefore no death penalty or corporal punishment at all, and certainly no stonings, hangings or beheadings for adultery or anything else being issued from sharia courts. I predicted that this would be misinterpreted, and it was.
Post by: De Selby on February 07, 2008, 10:41:47 PM
... but they should just learn to adapt and set up their own courts. And their law would have to operate within the bounds of British law.
Precisely, therefore the courts would be limited to civil matters and would only apply to those who agreed to submit to the judgement of the court. Therefore if I have a dispute with my Jewish landlord I am not bound to go through the Beth Din if that was his preferred court, we'd end up in a normal British court. He has a dispute with a Jewish tenant and they both agree to the Beth Din then the judgement of the Beth Din is binding...
...with the proviso that the judgement of the Beth Din has to be 'reasonable' as far as British law is concerned. Reasonable would imply legal - therefore no death penalty or corporal punishment at all, and certainly no stonings, hangings or beheadings for adultery or anything else being issued from sharia courts. I predicted that this would be misinterpreted, and it was.
Sounds exactly like arbitration in the US-common law countries have had this concept for at least a hundred years, and who knows how much longer.
Post by: LAK on February 08, 2008, 02:25:06 AM
Personally, I think the wisest thing would be to send these people back to a homeland of their own. Conservatives should have listened to Enoch Powell and dealt with the change agents at that time as well.
--------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 08, 2008, 03:36:13 AM
Therefore if I have a dispute with my Jewish landlord I am not bound to go through the Beth Din if that was his preferred court, we'd end up in a normal British court. He has a dispute with a Jewish tenant and they both agree to the Beth Din then the judgement of the Beth Din is binding...
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
If both courts would produce essentially the same ruling, then why have a duplicate system in the first place?? If they would not produce essentially the same ruling, then I contend the inconsistencies would eventually produce serious problems. To me, this is beyond obvious.
Also, consider the following scenario: A jew and a muslim have a dispute. Each wants to go to his respective ethnocultural court. They cannot agree. Who would force them to go to a British court? They can even start suing one another about suing one another, each in their respective court, or in a British court for the right to take it elsewhere.
And all of this nonsense, extra expense, and social risks to accomodate a completely misguided multicultural worldview.
Post by: HankB on February 08, 2008, 04:16:55 AM
As for the Archbishop of Canterbury, he's an excellent example of the old saying that "Many things are holy, but few holy men are."
They must be teaching dhimmitude in Church of England seminaries these days.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 04:56:36 AM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
No, it's not similar. Yes, you can find points of similarity. But these religions are all very different. Why do we pretend otherwise?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 05:01:07 AM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
Is it, now.
(That's in London, BTW.)
Post by: Iain on February 08, 2008, 05:43:10 AM
Can we lay this to rest - what we are talking about is an arbitration process that is entirely voluntary and already exists. It would be entirely under British law, therefore no 'one rule for muslims, one for non-muslims' in either the British courts or the proposed British sharia courts. The issues would not be criminal and would be entirely civil issues such as tenancy etc.
Even the original post recognised this last point, so the continuation of this thread beyond the pointing out of the existence of the Beth Din has little to do with legal concerns and more to do with 'sharia'.
Post by: ilbob on February 08, 2008, 05:46:33 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 05:52:39 AM
And there were prosecutions. And continuing to insist that scenes like the one above are representative of anything but the tiniest minority is little more than fear-mongering.
Hey, it's your country. It's just that in 20 years, you'll be asking yourself "Hey, what happened?" when interfactional violence blows up more Underground trains, more buses, blows up the Thames flood barrier, and the most notable landmark left in a half-flooded London is Big Ben, which doesn't work, but has got "call to prayer" loudspeakers on it.
You're ceding your country to people who view concession as a weakness to be exploited. You're ceding it to people who do not view themselves as British citizens, but as Islamists living in Britain. And you're tolerating a growing culture of intolerance in the name of tolerance. And it will destroy you. Enjoy!
(We'll just sit back with popcorn and watch, and consider it a warning.)
Post by: cordex on February 08, 2008, 06:07:11 AM
Can we lay this to rest - what we are talking about is an arbitration process that is entirely voluntary and already exists. It would be entirely under British law, therefore no 'one rule for muslims, one for non-muslims' in either the British courts or the proposed British sharia courts. The issues would not be criminal and would be entirely civil issues such as tenancy etc.
Yep. Voluntary arbitration is a non-issue.
Post by: Bigjake on February 08, 2008, 06:12:45 AM
Quote
And there were prosecutions. And continuing to insist that scenes like the one above are representative of anything but the tiniest minority is little more than fear-mongering.
I've got your "tiniest minority" right here...
Heres one of British flavor, compliments of your eency weensy widdle radical minorities in 2005
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 08, 2008, 06:23:04 AM
The government doesn't need to have its hands in everything.
Post by: HankB on February 08, 2008, 06:25:34 AM
For example, the Iranian constitution states that "the investigation of individuals beliefs is forbidden" and that "no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief" . . . but try to open a church or synagogue in Tehran, or simply practice the Baha'i faith, and you'll soon be smacked hard by reality . . . and not just by a teeny, tiny, number of the faithful.
And not just in this one Moslem country.
This looks like a " . . . camel's nose under the tent flap . . ." type of issue.
Post by: The Viking on February 08, 2008, 06:39:03 AM
Post by: Iain on February 08, 2008, 06:47:33 AM
But hey, a couple of people have read it and decided not to over-react. That'll do for me.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 08, 2008, 06:48:16 AM
A man wants a family matter settled by a Sharia court. It has to do with his daughter.
His daughter, who is over the age of legal independence, doesn't want to have anything to do with that.
In fact, she wants to convert to another religion.
Now. Tell me what might happen there?
Here's a hint, I think.
Quote
Seyran Ates (pictured), aged 43, is a lawyer, specialising in women's rights. From a practice in Berlin, she had become well-known and her skills were eagerly sought by Muslim women. In 2005, she was named "German woman of the year". She has long campaigned for forced marriages to be made illegal in Germany. Most of her clients have been Muslim women who have been trapped into forced marriage and other demeaning aspects of Muslim "honour" culture that persist. Many of these women are, like herself, from Turkish/Kurdish backgrounds. She also campaigned against the ultimate aspect of Muslim "honour" - Muslim honour killings.
Seyran was born in 1963 in Istanbul, and moved to Berlin with her family when she was 6. She has lived in Berlin since then. As she stated last year: "I grew up in a Turkish family. My parents are Turkish. My father is Kurdish, my mother is Turkish, and I grew up in a very traditional family and I ran away when I was 17 years old because I can't stand this very hard traditional life and living in a very modern surrounding in Germany and living in a very traditional Turkish family was not so easy for me. So I grew up with this idea of women have to stay home, they have to marry someone some time and they get children and live very traditionally. You see, this is also the idea that also German people have all over the world, we have this traditional structure that women have to live in the house and men live outside the house."
Speaking in English, she said of honour killings and Muslim women in Germany: "And I think that more than 50 percent live in such a situation of fear of honor killings or to be killed. Many of my clients, I am working as a lawyer here in Berlin and I make family and criminal law, many of my clients, women, they say they are feared to divorce because their men say, "If you divorce, if you go to court to divorce, I will kill you."
"So we have a very high number who are very silent, who stay home and don't go out, don't ask for divorce, because they are in fear of being killed because of honor."
She has attacked Germany's bland acceptance of "multiculturalism", and has said that it keeps Muslim women in slavery, rather than forcing the Muslim community to adhere to the same standards as other people living in Germany.
But sadly, news comes from the Telegraph today and from Monday's Deutsche Welle that the constant death threats which have been made against her by Muslim men have become too much. After two decades of defending the rights of Muslim women from abuse, Seyran Ates has finally announced that she has closed her practice.
Seyran was born in 1963 in Istanbul, and moved to Berlin with her family when she was 6. She has lived in Berlin since then. As she stated last year: "I grew up in a Turkish family. My parents are Turkish. My father is Kurdish, my mother is Turkish, and I grew up in a very traditional family and I ran away when I was 17 years old because I can't stand this very hard traditional life and living in a very modern surrounding in Germany and living in a very traditional Turkish family was not so easy for me. So I grew up with this idea of women have to stay home, they have to marry someone some time and they get children and live very traditionally. You see, this is also the idea that also German people have all over the world, we have this traditional structure that women have to live in the house and men live outside the house."
Speaking in English, she said of honour killings and Muslim women in Germany: "And I think that more than 50 percent live in such a situation of fear of honor killings or to be killed. Many of my clients, I am working as a lawyer here in Berlin and I make family and criminal law, many of my clients, women, they say they are feared to divorce because their men say, "If you divorce, if you go to court to divorce, I will kill you."
"So we have a very high number who are very silent, who stay home and don't go out, don't ask for divorce, because they are in fear of being killed because of honor."
She has attacked Germany's bland acceptance of "multiculturalism", and has said that it keeps Muslim women in slavery, rather than forcing the Muslim community to adhere to the same standards as other people living in Germany.
But sadly, news comes from the Telegraph today and from Monday's Deutsche Welle that the constant death threats which have been made against her by Muslim men have become too much. After two decades of defending the rights of Muslim women from abuse, Seyran Ates has finally announced that she has closed her practice.
Post by: The Viking on February 08, 2008, 06:55:04 AM
Here's a hypothetical:
A man wants a family matter settled by a Sharia court. It has to do with his daughter.
His daughter, who is over the age of legal independence, doesn't want to have anything to do with that.
In fact, she wants to convert to another religion.
Now. Tell me what might happen there?
Here's a hint, I think.
That's a scary read. These so-called "honor"killings are not unheard of here either. Latest trend seems to be "throw her off a balcony". A 16 year old girl hit the concrete from the fourth or fifth floor a couple of days ago. Two of her family members were arrested. I hope they get seriously buttraped in prison (happened to a rapist a year or two back. Seriously sodomized in prison A man wants a family matter settled by a Sharia court. It has to do with his daughter.
His daughter, who is over the age of legal independence, doesn't want to have anything to do with that.
In fact, she wants to convert to another religion.
Now. Tell me what might happen there?
Here's a hint, I think.
Quote
Seyran Ates (pictured), aged 43, is a lawyer, specialising in women's rights. From a practice in Berlin, she had become well-known and her skills were eagerly sought by Muslim women. In 2005, she was named "German woman of the year". She has long campaigned for forced marriages to be made illegal in Germany. Most of her clients have been Muslim women who have been trapped into forced marriage and other demeaning aspects of Muslim "honour" culture that persist. Many of these women are, like herself, from Turkish/Kurdish backgrounds. She also campaigned against the ultimate aspect of Muslim "honour" - Muslim honour killings.
Seyran was born in 1963 in Istanbul, and moved to Berlin with her family when she was 6. She has lived in Berlin since then. As she stated last year: "I grew up in a Turkish family. My parents are Turkish. My father is Kurdish, my mother is Turkish, and I grew up in a very traditional family and I ran away when I was 17 years old because I can't stand this very hard traditional life and living in a very modern surrounding in Germany and living in a very traditional Turkish family was not so easy for me. So I grew up with this idea of women have to stay home, they have to marry someone some time and they get children and live very traditionally. You see, this is also the idea that also German people have all over the world, we have this traditional structure that women have to live in the house and men live outside the house."
Speaking in English, she said of honour killings and Muslim women in Germany: "And I think that more than 50 percent live in such a situation of fear of honor killings or to be killed. Many of my clients, I am working as a lawyer here in Berlin and I make family and criminal law, many of my clients, women, they say they are feared to divorce because their men say, "If you divorce, if you go to court to divorce, I will kill you."
"So we have a very high number who are very silent, who stay home and don't go out, don't ask for divorce, because they are in fear of being killed because of honor."
She has attacked Germany's bland acceptance of "multiculturalism", and has said that it keeps Muslim women in slavery, rather than forcing the Muslim community to adhere to the same standards as other people living in Germany.
But sadly, news comes from the Telegraph today and from Monday's Deutsche Welle that the constant death threats which have been made against her by Muslim men have become too much. After two decades of defending the rights of Muslim women from abuse, Seyran Ates has finally announced that she has closed her practice.
Seyran was born in 1963 in Istanbul, and moved to Berlin with her family when she was 6. She has lived in Berlin since then. As she stated last year: "I grew up in a Turkish family. My parents are Turkish. My father is Kurdish, my mother is Turkish, and I grew up in a very traditional family and I ran away when I was 17 years old because I can't stand this very hard traditional life and living in a very modern surrounding in Germany and living in a very traditional Turkish family was not so easy for me. So I grew up with this idea of women have to stay home, they have to marry someone some time and they get children and live very traditionally. You see, this is also the idea that also German people have all over the world, we have this traditional structure that women have to live in the house and men live outside the house."
Speaking in English, she said of honour killings and Muslim women in Germany: "And I think that more than 50 percent live in such a situation of fear of honor killings or to be killed. Many of my clients, I am working as a lawyer here in Berlin and I make family and criminal law, many of my clients, women, they say they are feared to divorce because their men say, "If you divorce, if you go to court to divorce, I will kill you."
"So we have a very high number who are very silent, who stay home and don't go out, don't ask for divorce, because they are in fear of being killed because of honor."
She has attacked Germany's bland acceptance of "multiculturalism", and has said that it keeps Muslim women in slavery, rather than forcing the Muslim community to adhere to the same standards as other people living in Germany.
But sadly, news comes from the Telegraph today and from Monday's Deutsche Welle that the constant death threats which have been made against her by Muslim men have become too much. After two decades of defending the rights of Muslim women from abuse, Seyran Ates has finally announced that she has closed her practice.
)
Post by: Boomhauer on February 08, 2008, 06:56:55 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 08, 2008, 07:00:14 AM
Like I said - fear mongering.
But hey, a couple of people have read it and decided not to over-react. That'll do for me.
Plenty of other folks have read it and decided it is something worth reacting to. Plenty of people quoted in the article think it's a problem, too. Since you read it, perhaps you noticed that the entire second have of the article is a laundry list of government and community leaders who are worried about what these Muslims laws might do to your country.But hey, a couple of people have read it and decided not to over-react. That'll do for me.
Just because you agree with a set of parallel laws doesn't mean that everyone else has to. To claim that anyone who disagrees with your assessment is uninformed or fear mongering is just plain stupid.
Post by: wooderson on February 08, 2008, 08:40:35 AM
As to manedwolf's argument - how is that relevant? If a woman is going to be cowed by her family, isn't that going to happen under the current civil process (which she may understand less than her religious law) as well?
Post by: roo_ster on February 08, 2008, 09:00:06 AM
If this deal is to be entirely voluntary, why even make noise about law? Those so disposed go to the court/whatever and get their dispute dealt with. No need to involve real law.
But, I suspect it is not about voluntary conflict resolution.
Post by: roo_ster on February 08, 2008, 09:07:52 AM
Quote from: http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/rogerkimball/2008/02/07/who_will_rid_us_of_this_troubl.php
In a widely reported lecture on BBC radio 4 the Archbishop called for a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law and said that Britons must face up to the fact that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Constructive accommodation : lets see, I guess that is British English for spineless capitulation ?
And what is all this about Muslim Brits not relating to the law? The rule of law is is not a lifestyle choice: it is not something you can opt out of if you happen to have alternative inclinations. Gee, in my religion, we stone adulteresses to death, so would you mind stepping aside and handing me that pile of rocks?
The proper answer to such gambits was formulated in the 19th century by General Charles Napier when dealing with sutte, the Indian custom of burning a widow on her husbands funeral pyre: You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.
And what is all this about Muslim Brits not relating to the law? The rule of law is is not a lifestyle choice: it is not something you can opt out of if you happen to have alternative inclinations. Gee, in my religion, we stone adulteresses to death, so would you mind stepping aside and handing me that pile of rocks?
The proper answer to such gambits was formulated in the 19th century by General Charles Napier when dealing with sutte, the Indian custom of burning a widow on her husbands funeral pyre: You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.
If the savages can do not like Brit law, they need to climb back into the toilet from whence they crawled.
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide."
----James Burnham
Post by: Iain on February 08, 2008, 01:26:36 PM
Just because you agree with a set of parallel laws doesn't mean that everyone else has to. To claim that anyone who disagrees with your assessment is uninformed or fear mongering is just plain stupid.
We're not talking about a parallel set of laws. We are talking about voluntary arbitration under British law.
Fear mongering - posting pictures of a few islamists holding signs or 9/11 when discussing the above voluntary arbitration system. Everything but everything is the End of Western Civilisation and They're Going to Behead Us All, or stone us or chop off our hands. Very silly, not what is being discussed at all.
Can we have a massive over reaction to Beth Dins please? There is plenty of stuff out there on the internet about them Jews and what they might be up to. But this isn't about Beth Dins or arbitration, it's about muslims and sharia, and that's all this is about.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 08, 2008, 02:35:01 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 08, 2008, 10:49:36 PM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
No, it's not similar. Yes, you can find points of similarity. But these religions are all very different. Why do we pretend otherwise?
Okay, so my question is: In what way are they so strikingly different?
I am not pretending. It is a sincere question.
Post by: De Selby on February 08, 2008, 10:51:16 PM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
Is it, now.
(That's in London, BTW.)
Big deal-there are yearly demonstrations in tel aviv with signs that say "burn all the gays and blacks" held by Orthodox extremists. Most Jews don't take them seriously, just like most Muslims obviously don't take these guys seriously. I don't see how a demonstration somehow proves a point about an entire religion.
Post by: De Selby on February 08, 2008, 10:52:20 PM
I've got your "tiniest minority" right here...
19 people with Bin Laden as their handler are a significant portion of Muslims in what way exactly?
Post by: De Selby on February 08, 2008, 10:53:44 PM
For example, the Iranian constitution states that "the investigation of individuals beliefs is forbidden" and that "no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief" . . . but try to open a church or synagogue in Tehran, or simply practice the Baha'i faith, and you'll soon be smacked hard by reality . . . and not just by a teeny, tiny, number of the faithful.
And not just in this one Moslem country.
This looks like a " . . . camel's nose under the tent flap . . ." type of issue.
Uh, hate to burst the stereotype bubble, but not only are there synagogues in Tehran....Ahmadinejad is a top donor to the Tehran Jewish Hospital. Bahai religion is illegal though, that's true. Just not Judaism-In Iran Jews are considered Iranians, just like everyone else in that country.
Post by: De Selby on February 08, 2008, 10:55:43 PM
Like I said - fear mongering.
But hey, a couple of people have read it and decided not to over-react. That'll do for me.
Plenty of other folks have read it and decided it is something worth reacting to. Plenty of people quoted in the article think it's a problem, too. Since you read it, perhaps you noticed that the entire second have of the article is a laundry list of government and community leaders who are worried about what these Muslims laws might do to your country.But hey, a couple of people have read it and decided not to over-react. That'll do for me.
Just because you agree with a set of parallel laws doesn't mean that everyone else has to. To claim that anyone who disagrees with your assessment is uninformed or fear mongering is just plain stupid.
The fear mongering part is claiming that these laws are somehow mandatory or carry some force of the British government-which they don't.
To not recognize the fear mongering involved in the opposition to these programs is just plain stupid, if you ask me.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 03:39:42 AM
Big deal-there are yearly demonstrations in tel aviv with signs that say "burn all the gays and blacks" held by Orthodox extremists.
BULLSH__.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 09, 2008, 06:02:47 AM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
No, it's not similar. Yes, you can find points of similarity. But these religions are all very different. Why do we pretend otherwise?
Okay, so my question is: In what way are they so strikingly different?
I am not pretending. It is a sincere question.
Of course, "similar" is a rather subjective term. For the sake of this discussion, the similarities may be important. It's just that there is a widespread, and tiresome, insistence that all religions are really the same. Which has a certain truth, if we decide that the differences are not important. But that would be like saying that all schools of philosophy or all political ideologies are the same.
So, OK, proceed.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 11:24:51 AM
He does realize that, under Sharia law,he's a dead man. Right?......
You have no understanding of Sharia law, do you?
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 11:32:37 AM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
Is it, now.
(That's in London, BTW.)
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 11:36:39 AM
Phelps's people are ONE SMALL GROUP.
There were mobs calling for death in London. In Sudan (teddy bear). In Pakistan. In Paris suburbs. In place after place after place, with either bloodthirsty signs or machetes or AK's firing in the air, or all three. Every day. Over and over and over and over, people by the thousands.
You're in college, aren't you? You don't understand yet, if so, so give it a rest.
Post by: El Tejon on February 09, 2008, 11:54:00 AM
WTF, Sgt. Bob, get on the stick, old boy and buy some bleedin' guns. 5 Guns? My 9 year old nephew owns twice that. Geez, you guys.
O.K., now, back to all the whining about the Archbishop. So, if this is all done purusant to contract, like choice of law provisions in American contracts (e.g., "the law of New York state shall apply to any dispute of this contract"), what's the big deal?
Achmed's grocery store contracts with Yassam's House of Veggies and then there is a dispute about price or overhead or whatever. Instead of running into civil court, they both hop down to the mosque and talk to the guy with the beard.
What's wrong with Alternative Dispute Resolution? I thought everyone here hated lawyers?
Post by: HankB on February 09, 2008, 01:23:43 PM
For example, the Iranian constitution states that "the investigation of individuals beliefs is forbidden" and that "no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief" . . . but try to open a church or synagogue in Tehran, or simply practice the Baha'i faith, and you'll soon be smacked hard by reality . . . and not just by a teeny, tiny, number of the faithful.
And not just in this one Moslem country.
This looks like a " . . . camel's nose under the tent flap . . ." type of issue.
Uh, hate to burst the stereotype bubble, but not only are there synagogues in Tehran....Ahmadinejad is a top donor to the Tehran Jewish Hospital. Bahai religion is illegal though, that's true. Just not Judaism-In Iran Jews are considered Iranians, just like everyone else in that country.
Hmmm . . . I wonder why . . .
Maybe because in Iran, Jews may not occupy senior positions in the government or the military, are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and cannot become public school heads. They're not considered to be just Iranians ". . . like everyone else in that country."
Ahmadinejad's supposed donations are about as real as John Kerry's hunting heritage.
Post by: De Selby on February 09, 2008, 01:28:35 PM
Big deal-there are yearly demonstrations in tel aviv with signs that say "burn all the gays and blacks" held by Orthodox extremists.
BULLSH__.
See for yourself:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/784453.html
Quote
Hundreds of police forces deployed in residential areas of Jerusalem on Monday as demonstrations against the upcoming gay pride parade erupted in the city's religious neighborhoods for a second week.
A taxi driver was lightly injured when his cab struck a trash receptacle rolled into the streets by ultra-Orthodox protesters. Police took over residential streets to force demonstrators to clear the roads and cease disturbances. Over the course of the evening, protests spilled over from the city's ultra-Orthodox streets into more mixed areas.
A taxi driver was lightly injured when his cab struck a trash receptacle rolled into the streets by ultra-Orthodox protesters. Police took over residential streets to force demonstrators to clear the roads and cease disturbances. Over the course of the evening, protests spilled over from the city's ultra-Orthodox streets into more mixed areas.
Post by: De Selby on February 09, 2008, 01:30:19 PM
That's one of the things I find so odd about the Islam bashing campaign afoot-it's so similar to the religions of every western european country (including Judaism) that you'd think people would take a step back and look at other explanations for terrorism and violence, but apparently this isn't commonly done.
No, it's not similar. Yes, you can find points of similarity. But these religions are all very different. Why do we pretend otherwise?
Okay, so my question is: In what way are they so strikingly different?
I am not pretending. It is a sincere question.
Of course, "similar" is a rather subjective term. For the sake of this discussion, the similarities may be important. It's just that there is a widespread, and tiresome, insistence that all religions are really the same. Which has a certain truth, if we decide that the differences are not important. But that would be like saying that all schools of philosophy or all political ideologies are the same.
So, OK, proceed.
That's true-of course they are not the same. But for the purposes of this discussion, ie, their rules on family law and social conduct, how are they different?
Theologically they all have differences. But in terms of what they teach as far as behavior, and how their legal systems work, just what is the difference?
That's a better way to frame the question.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 02:01:23 PM
Let's see, Tecumseh,
Phelps's people are ONE SMALL GROUP.
There were mobs calling for death in London. In Sudan (teddy bear). In Pakistan. In Paris suburbs. In place after place after place, with either bloodthirsty signs or machetes or AK's firing in the air, or all three. Every day. Over and over and over and over, people by the thousands.
You're in college, aren't you? You don't understand yet, if so, so give it a rest.
How many people? You have offered nothing but anecdotal evidence that all Muslims hate the USA and everything not Islamic. I have posted proof that as irrefutable as the proof you have posted about Muslims. Yet mine is dismissed because of what exactly? Phelps's people are ONE SMALL GROUP.
There were mobs calling for death in London. In Sudan (teddy bear). In Pakistan. In Paris suburbs. In place after place after place, with either bloodthirsty signs or machetes or AK's firing in the air, or all three. Every day. Over and over and over and over, people by the thousands.
You're in college, aren't you? You don't understand yet, if so, so give it a rest.
What does it matter if I am in college or not? Do you think that is all I do? Why don't I get it? Please elaborate for me.
Post by: De Selby on February 09, 2008, 02:04:52 PM
In 1948, there were estimated to be 100,000 Jews in Iran; estimates are that today, there are less than 1/4 that number.
Hmmm . . . I wonder why . . .
Hmmm . . . I wonder why . . .
There's no secret there-because the economies in America and Israel are vastly better, and Iranian Jews have a much easier time emigrating to those places than other Iranians. Hence, they leave Iran (wisely) at a much higher rate than other segments of the population. If Israel and the US opened doors to every Iranian, we'd have a flood of them regardless of religion for the obvious economic sense of the decision.
Quote
Maybe because in Iran, Jews may not occupy senior positions in the government or the military, are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and cannot become public school heads. They're not considered to be just Iranians ". . . like everyone else in that country."
Ahmadinejad's supposed donations are about as real as John Kerry's hunting heritage.
Ahmadinejad's supposed donations are about as real as John Kerry's hunting heritage.
What? Jews are guaranteed a certain number of seats in the parliament, run the best hospital in Tehran, and are honored yearly by Ahmadinejad's party for their sacrifices and contributions to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. This picture of Jews in Iran is simply false-they are oppressed in that they are Iranians (because Iran is not a free country, period), but there is no institutionalized pogram there.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0427/p01s03-wome.html?page=3
Quote
Part of that coexistence has been gratitude for the Dr. Sapir Hospital, a Jewish charity hospital that would have closed years ago, but for subsidies from Jews inside and outside Iran, doctors say.
During the 1979 revolution, the hospital refused to hand over those wounded in clashes with the security forces of the pro-West Shah Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Khomeini later sent a personal representative to express his thanks. Ahmadinejad, too, has made a $27,000 donation.
During the 1979 revolution, the hospital refused to hand over those wounded in clashes with the security forces of the pro-West Shah Reza Pahlavi. Ayatollah Khomeini later sent a personal representative to express his thanks. Ahmadinejad, too, has made a $27,000 donation.
Post by: Bigjake on February 09, 2008, 05:59:53 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 10:12:18 PM
This seems to have lit a fuse under the public there, woke at least some out of their statist stupor and made them yell "No sharia, please, we're British." People are really ANGRY.
Calls for the guy's resignation, even, from all quarters.
Good.
Post by: Iain on February 09, 2008, 10:58:21 PM
Here's an unscientific survey of the top'recommended' responses of the BBC 'Have Your Say' debate, which has attracted over 20,000 responses. I'll classify them into two simple categories 1) 'probably doesn't know their arse from their elbow and is talking bulls**t', and 2) 'maybe, just maybe isn't a reactionary idiot and has looked into this'
1) 30 responses
2) 0 responses
Like I say, if this wasn't about sharia, if the Archbishop had said something about incorporating Jewish arbitration courts (as already exist) and people had posted responses on that HYS such as 'over my dead body' (there is one there in the top 30) then you'd recognise this for what it is. Right now you'd be labelling the entire British population as anti-semites, and I'd sadly have to agree, if this storm was about Jews and Jewish law, there would be proof of there being a lot of anti-semites. But it isn't, so many are blind to what this actually is.
For a change I agree with jake. Nuke this thread, it's a cesspool, much like the media response has been.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 11:13:12 PM
Good that people are either wilfully misunderstanding as you are, or are easily duped by media misrepresentation? (which you would recognise if the words 'sharia' and 'muslim' were not involved.)
For a change I agree with jake. Nuke this thread, it's a cesspool, much like the media response has been.
For a change I agree with jake. Nuke this thread, it's a cesspool, much like the media response has been.
Okay, it didn't wake them all up. My mistake.
"Ostrich" is a unique perspective.
Post by: Iain on February 09, 2008, 11:20:55 PM
That's sad. You are little more than an islamophobe reacting furiously and deliberately to a straw man and delighting in the islamophobia that the media misrepresentation has whipped up.
Seems your perspective isn't unique sadly.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 09, 2008, 11:23:27 PM
Hm.
Underground. Boom.
Double-decker bus. Boom.
Glasgow airport. Boom.
Two nightclubs. Almost boom.
How loud do the explosions have to be before you realize that you've got a growing population of militant sorts who don't want to become British, they want to remake the UK into an extension of their extremist caliphate, and that includes wanting a parallel system of justice based on 12th century barbaric practices and zero respect for women?
This is not like the IRA troubles. Negotiation is seen as weakness. Concessions are seen as an opening for more demands. It will get worse.
And worse.
And worse.
Until London looks like the Middle East, complete with weekly suicide bombings. If you let it.
Post by: Iain on February 09, 2008, 11:39:56 PM
A lot more than your fear mongering. There are problems, but your fantasy and the fantasies of those like you certainly aren't helping. I'll do my bit for muslim relations in the UK by continuing to work with this guy and his community, that'll achieve far more than paranoid hateful rantings on the internet ever could.
that includes wanting a parallel system of justice based on 12th century barbaric practices and zero respect for women?
You didn't listen to any of the lawyers on this thread, nor to any of those who have read what has been discussed. Not because you can't, but because you don't want to.
Try your schtick with something else, another day. I won't forget, others might.
Post by: seeker_two on February 10, 2008, 04:26:20 AM
This picture is so ironic on a deep level to those who've watched Napoleon Dynamite.......
He does realize that, under Sharia law,he's a dead man. Right?......
You have no understanding of Sharia law, do you?Enough to know that preaching another religion in Sharia-ruled Islamic nations tends to get one even odds in the Dead Pool.......
Wait, wait, wait! There's someone with only 5 guns on this board? I keep that many in my Audi.
Thanks for making me feel inadequate on so many levels.......
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 07:35:14 AM
This picture is so ironic on a deep level to those who've watched Napoleon Dynamite.......
He does realize that, under Sharia law,he's a dead man. Right?......
You have no understanding of Sharia law, do you?Enough to know that preaching another religion in Sharia-ruled Islamic nations tends to get one even odds in the Dead Pool.......
Where is this located in the Koran? Please show me. I am sure you have a legitimate source.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 08:06:13 AM
Quote
What Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law made by bearded men, for men and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion.
Pray tell me sir, how do separate and impenetrable courts and schools and extreme female segregation promote commonalities and deep bonds between citizens of these small isles?
What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies. He passes round what he believes to be the benign libation of tolerance. It is laced with arsenic.
He would not want his own girls and women, I am sure, to "choose" to be governed by these laws he breezily endorses. And he is naive to the point of folly if he imagines it is possible to pick and choose the bits that are relatively nice to the girls or ones that seem to dictate honourable financial transactions.
Look around the Islamic world where sharia rules and, in every single country, these ordinances reduce our human value to less than half that is accorded a male; homosexuals are imprisoned or killed, children have no free voice or autonomy, authoritarianism rules and infantilises populations.
What's more, different Muslim nations claim to have their own allegedly god-given sharia. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive (What in Allah's name could the Koran have warned about cars?). In Bangladesh and Pakistan, they have no such bar to driving, although increasingly Saudi Wahabi Islam is taking over and we see Saudi sharia taking hold.
It is growing in influence here, too. Ten years ago, the only fully shrouded Muslim women around were from the Arab fiefdoms, the many wives of sheikhs often drawn by cartoonists to convey the absurdity and inhumanity of such cloaks. Now all of Europe has these girls and women rendering themselves invisible in public spaces. It is their elected sharia, so they claim without credibility. There is no agreed body of sharia, it is all drafted by males and the most cruel is now claiming absolute authority.
In Pakistan, on the statutes are strictures on adultery introduced by the military dictator Zia ul-Haq. Women activists in that country have given their lives protesting against the injustice of those laws where women suspected of adultery, or rape victims, are punished in hideous ways and the man goes free.
The Iranian theocracy changes its regulations from year to year, capriciously playing with the lives of females. The morality police hound women and girls, beat them up, imprison them for showing an ankle, walking too provocatively or singing in the streets. They fight back but are ground down eventually.
Two Iranian friends chose to die rather than live under the demeaning religious orders. Go to Afghanistan if you fancy a 12-year-old bride a practice approved by the mullahs. That's sharia for you. Many women, gay men and dissidents came to Britain to escape Islamic tyrants and their laws. Dr Williams supports those laws and, by default, makes the refugees victims again.
Pray tell me sir, how do separate and impenetrable courts and schools and extreme female segregation promote commonalities and deep bonds between citizens of these small isles?
What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies. He passes round what he believes to be the benign libation of tolerance. It is laced with arsenic.
He would not want his own girls and women, I am sure, to "choose" to be governed by these laws he breezily endorses. And he is naive to the point of folly if he imagines it is possible to pick and choose the bits that are relatively nice to the girls or ones that seem to dictate honourable financial transactions.
Look around the Islamic world where sharia rules and, in every single country, these ordinances reduce our human value to less than half that is accorded a male; homosexuals are imprisoned or killed, children have no free voice or autonomy, authoritarianism rules and infantilises populations.
What's more, different Muslim nations claim to have their own allegedly god-given sharia. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive (What in Allah's name could the Koran have warned about cars?). In Bangladesh and Pakistan, they have no such bar to driving, although increasingly Saudi Wahabi Islam is taking over and we see Saudi sharia taking hold.
It is growing in influence here, too. Ten years ago, the only fully shrouded Muslim women around were from the Arab fiefdoms, the many wives of sheikhs often drawn by cartoonists to convey the absurdity and inhumanity of such cloaks. Now all of Europe has these girls and women rendering themselves invisible in public spaces. It is their elected sharia, so they claim without credibility. There is no agreed body of sharia, it is all drafted by males and the most cruel is now claiming absolute authority.
In Pakistan, on the statutes are strictures on adultery introduced by the military dictator Zia ul-Haq. Women activists in that country have given their lives protesting against the injustice of those laws where women suspected of adultery, or rape victims, are punished in hideous ways and the man goes free.
The Iranian theocracy changes its regulations from year to year, capriciously playing with the lives of females. The morality police hound women and girls, beat them up, imprison them for showing an ankle, walking too provocatively or singing in the streets. They fight back but are ground down eventually.
Two Iranian friends chose to die rather than live under the demeaning religious orders. Go to Afghanistan if you fancy a 12-year-old bride a practice approved by the mullahs. That's sharia for you. Many women, gay men and dissidents came to Britain to escape Islamic tyrants and their laws. Dr Williams supports those laws and, by default, makes the refugees victims again.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 08:34:00 AM
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 09:08:41 AM
This is not like the IRA troubles. Negotiation is seen as weakness. Concessions are seen as an opening for more demands. It will get worse.
And worse.
And worse.
Until London looks like the Middle East, complete with weekly suicide bombings. If you let it.
And worse.
And worse.
Until London looks like the Middle East, complete with weekly suicide bombings. If you let it.
You know what?
This could be a quote from Goebbels' speech to the German people on "total war" against the Bolshevist threat. It's scary how similar some of the arguments people today use to whip up fear of the "islamic threat" are to the very same arguments Goebbels used to whip up support for "total war against the East!"
From Goebbels:
Quote
That is a direct threat to the existence of every European power. No one should believe that Bolshevism would stop at the borders of the Reich, were it to be victorious. The goal of its aggressive policies and wars is the Bolshevization of every land and people in the world. In the face of such undeniable intentions, we are not impressed by paper declarations from the Kremlin or guarantees from London or Washington. We know that we are dealing in the East with an infernal political devilishness that does not recognize the norms governing relations between people and nations.
The similarities are striking.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 09:19:20 AM
Quote
That is a direct threat to the existence of every European power. No one should believe that Bolshevism would stop at the borders of the Reich, were it to be victorious. The goal of its aggressive policies and wars is the Bolshevization of every land and people in the world. In the face of such undeniable intentions, we are not impressed by paper declarations from the Kremlin or guarantees from London or Washington. We know that we are dealing in the East with an infernal political devilishness that does not recognize the norms governing relations between people and nations.
Uh, hello? He WAS RIGHT about the Soviets. They DID threaten the whole world, not just Europe, up until about 1991...
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 09:21:41 AM
Quote
That is a direct threat to the existence of every European power. No one should believe that Bolshevism would stop at the borders of the Reich, were it to be victorious. The goal of its aggressive policies and wars is the Bolshevization of every land and people in the world. In the face of such undeniable intentions, we are not impressed by paper declarations from the Kremlin or guarantees from London or Washington. We know that we are dealing in the East with an infernal political devilishness that does not recognize the norms governing relations between people and nations.
Uh, hello? He WAS RIGHT about the Soviets. They DID threaten the whole world, not just Europe, up until about 1991...
He was talking about Jews, the "masterminds" of Bolshevism. So no, he wasn't right.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 10, 2008, 09:32:31 AM
With blatant fact like what Manedwolf just posted, how is it that you two live in a parallel world where Sharia is a happy fuzzy form of theocracy, and Iran is more tolerant and understanding than Berkeley?
And you have some actual proof from Islamic scholars that say all non-Muslims must be killed? I do have a problem with mass media? I mean I have seen the media lambasted here and on other gun forums. How is it they cannot understand the difference between a clip and a magazine but they can understand so easily what many scholars take lifetimes to earn?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 09:33:35 AM
Right. Denial is a fascinating thing...
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 09:37:48 AM
So a Muslim woman says what a bad idea this is, how people went to the UK to ESCAPE this in the sandbox, and you disbelieve it.
Right. Denial is a fascinating thing...
Right. Denial is a fascinating thing...
Well if a Muslim woman in a UK paper said it, who could possibly dispute the fact?
Seriously, do you believe that this amounts to evidence in support of your claims? Or is the anecdotal random person's viewpoint just a rhetorical device that you use to get people on board with your views about Islam?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 10, 2008, 09:39:28 AM
Seriously, do you believe that this amounts to evidence in support of your claims? Or is the anecdotal random person's viewpoint just a rhetorical device that you use to get people on board with your views about Islam?
Do you even realize how ironic it is that you asked that?
Hold up a mirror.
THAT IS YOU.
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 09:42:54 AM
Seriously, do you believe that this amounts to evidence in support of your claims? Or is the anecdotal random person's viewpoint just a rhetorical device that you use to get people on board with your views about Islam?
Do you even realize how ironic it is that you asked that?
Hold up a mirror.
THAT IS YOU.
Referencing the huge number of condemnations of terrorism by Muslim organizations is not "anecdotal evidence." Neither is pointing out that no Muslim authorities (scriptures, persons, anything of the kind) hold the extreme views that you regularly claim "Islam [is it a person?] wants to force on us!"
I notice that there was no answer to my question.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 09:46:48 AM
Care to find a source that does?
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 09:48:03 AM
No where in that quote does it suggest or imply Jews as the masterminds of Bolshevism.
Care to find a source that does?
Care to find a source that does?
It's not possible to find a source that does besides Goebbels and his followers today, because it's not true.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 09:52:21 AM
No where in that quote does it suggest or imply Jews as the masterminds of Bolshevism.
Care to find a source that does?
Care to find a source that does?
It's not possible to find a source that does besides Goebbels and his followers today, because it's not true.
Exactly, which is what I said. You're wrong.
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 09:57:21 AM
No where in that quote does it suggest or imply Jews as the masterminds of Bolshevism.
Care to find a source that does?
Care to find a source that does?
It's not possible to find a source that does besides Goebbels and his followers today, because it's not true.
Exactly, which is what I said. You're wrong.
I think we're confused about what each other is saying here.
If you want proof that Goebbels was referring to Judaism and tying the war to it, you can read the whole speech for yourself:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm
What I was saying above was that there is absolutely not a shred of sensible evidence to imply that any of this is factual.
Post by: Iain on February 10, 2008, 10:37:48 AM
Again, no stonings, no beheadings, no violence. This is not the 'sharia' of Saudi Arabia. There are issues, especially around womens rights, but codifying and opening up these 'courts' could potentially prevent or expose abuses.
Now, to lay my cards on the table - I'm cautious about the idea. But I will not knee-jerk, I will not deliberately misunderstand and I will not hate-monger.
That Goebbels speech makes interesting reading. Seems he was terribly afraid of (Jewish) communists considering he's supposed to be a communist, or a socialist, or anything lefty.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 12:32:23 PM
Quote
I think we're confused about what each other is saying here.
yeah, enough that I'm not going to retread through all of this.
You posted a quote about Bolshevism and used it out of context, and I called you on it. If you add
Quote
He was talking about Jews, the "masterminds" of Bolshevism. So no, he wasn't right.
, It changes the effect of the point you were trying to make.
Post by: De Selby on February 10, 2008, 02:21:26 PM
Quote
I think we're confused about what each other is saying here.
yeah, enough that I'm not going to retread through all of this.
You posted a quote about Bolshevism and used it out of context, and I called you on it. If you add
Quote
He was talking about Jews, the "masterminds" of Bolshevism. So no, he wasn't right.
, It changes the effect of the point you were trying to make. Again, it was not out of context-read the speech, I linked it to you. He claimed Bolshevism was the product of a Jewish plot that arose from a culture "incompatible with Western civilization" and that "could not be reasoned or negotiated with".
The point I was making was that Manedwolf's rhetoric is identical in form-claiming that the Muslims are "incompatible with western freedoms" and that "any concession is weakness", and then concluding that we need to toughen up an "address the Muslim problem" in the West. That is exactly what Goebbels said about Jews.
Post by: Bigjake on February 10, 2008, 06:47:11 PM
Quote
Again, it was not out of context-read the speech, I linked it to you. He claimed Bolshevism was the product of a Jewish plot that arose from a culture "incompatible with Western civilization" and that "could not be reasoned or negotiated with".
Lets agree to disagree then, I read your original quote, and should've assumed it was based against Jews, but didn't. You clearly knew what you were playing at, so we'll let it be. After reading the whole thing, I understand what you meant. Don't take that as agreement with your position, I just now get what you were trying to convey.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 10, 2008, 11:30:53 PM
Not that I'm buying the comparison, or rejecting. I just find Godwin's Law to be frequently over-applied.
Post by: Iain on February 11, 2008, 02:09:24 AM
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575 - The text of the speech that Rowan Williams gave. If you are literate you can read it, if you are subtle you might understand it. It is intellectual, it is nuanced and it carefully weighs and considers attendant issues.
Quote
...it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights. This is in effect to mirror what a minority might themselves be requesting...
Quote
A significant number of contemporary Islamic jurists and scholars would say that the Qur'anic pronouncements on apostasy which have been regarded as the ground for extreme penalties reflect a situation in which abandoning Islam was equivalent to adopting an active stance of violent hostility to the community, so that extreme penalties could be compared to provisions in other jurisdictions for punishing spies or traitors in wartime; but that this cannot be regarded as bearing on the conditions now existing in the world. Of course such a reading is wholly unacceptable to 'primitivists' in Islam, for whom this would be an example of a rationalising strategy,..
Quote
So the second objection to an increased legal recognition of communal religious identities can be met if we are prepared to think about the basic ground rules that might organise the relationship between jurisdictions, making sure that we do not collude with unexamined systems that have oppressive effect or allow shared public liberties to be decisively taken away by a supplementary jurisdiction.
Quote
Earlier on, I proposed that the criterion for recognising and collaborating with communal religious discipline should be connected with whether a communal jurisdiction actively interfered with liberties guaranteed by the wider society in such a way as definitively to block access to the exercise of those liberties; clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right.
Quote
I labour the point because what at first seems to be a somewhat narrow point about how Islamic law and Islamic identity should or might be regarded in our legal system in fact opens up a very wide range of current issues, and requires some general thinking about the character of law.
Quote
In conclusion, it seems that if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment. But as I have hinted, I do not believe this can be done without some thinking also about the very nature of law. It is always easy to take refuge in some form of positivism; and what I have called legal universalism, when divorced from a serious theoretical (and, I would argue, religious) underpinning, can turn into a positivism as sterile as any other variety. If the paradoxical idea which I have sketched is true – that universal law and universal right are a way of recognising what is least fathomable and controllable in the human subject – theology still waits for us around the corner of these debates, however hard our culture may try to keep it out. And, as you can imagine, I am not going to complain about that.
If you are going to take issue with Williams you are going to have to do it on the level he is at. The only major criticism that can be made of the Archbishop is that some of that is well out of reach of many people. A more substantial criticism is that this hasn't stopped many of them reacting to (appalling) media coverage.
The most damning criticism should be aimed at those who are capable of understanding the above and will still misrepresent the issue, deliberately.
Post by: roo_ster on February 11, 2008, 06:26:50 AM
How quaint. Another post-Christian leftist in a pulpit.
The more the buffoon speaks, the more he condemns himself and his diseased remnant of a once-relevant denomination.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 11, 2008, 06:51:44 AM
Post by: Iain on February 11, 2008, 12:57:10 PM
Instead I shall contribute something from the slightly more sensible comment that has appeared amongst a sea of trash
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3334760.ece
Quote
Sharia or Islamic law cannot trump the fundamental principles of English law even if the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to adopt some of its aspects, lawyers say.
Muslims can already decide to have disputes settled according to Sharia in private arbitration, but they cannot ignore or abandon the basic human rights and responsibilities entrenched in the laws of this country, the lawyers said. They also gave warning that moves towards recognising aspects of Sharia could lead to a dual legal system.
But the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks could pave the way to recognition of Sharia Councils, local groups set up to advise Muslims on matrimonial and other problems and mediate, in the way that the Beth Din, the Jewish Court, arbitrates certain disputes between Orthodox Jews.
Doesn't start so well, it should be obvious (although it apparently isn't) that it could not trump British law. Said it before - no stonings. Private arbitration already exists, but this is apparently slightly different to what Orthodox Jews have in the Beth Din.Muslims can already decide to have disputes settled according to Sharia in private arbitration, but they cannot ignore or abandon the basic human rights and responsibilities entrenched in the laws of this country, the lawyers said. They also gave warning that moves towards recognising aspects of Sharia could lead to a dual legal system.
But the Archbishop of Canterbury’s remarks could pave the way to recognition of Sharia Councils, local groups set up to advise Muslims on matrimonial and other problems and mediate, in the way that the Beth Din, the Jewish Court, arbitrates certain disputes between Orthodox Jews.
Quote
David Pannick, QC, one of Britain’s top human rights and public law barristers, said: “If the Archibishop of Canterbury means that Muslims can choose to have certain disputes settled according to their own law, by binding arbitration [what some call a Sharia court], then they can do this now, in the same way that some Jewish people have their disputes settled in the Beth Din.
“But such transfer of jurisdiction is subject to public policy considerations. That means that the fundamental standards of fairness, of human rights which underpin our laws cannot be abrogated. They can’t just be ditched, whether a person is male, female, black or white. If the Archibishop is saying this, then that is fundamentally wrong.”
As you can see from the text of his speech, he didn't say that. In fact he explicitly warned against it:“But such transfer of jurisdiction is subject to public policy considerations. That means that the fundamental standards of fairness, of human rights which underpin our laws cannot be abrogated. They can’t just be ditched, whether a person is male, female, black or white. If the Archibishop is saying this, then that is fundamentally wrong.”
Quote
ABC says:So the second objection to an increased legal recognition of communal religious identities can be met if we are prepared to think about the basic ground rules that might organise the relationship between jurisdictions, making sure that we do not collude with unexamined systems that have oppressive effect or allow shared public liberties to be decisively taken away by a supplementary jurisdiction.
Quote
Ian Edge, director of the Centre of Islamic and Middle East Law (CIMEL), said that he would want to study what the Archbishop had said before commenting. But in general, there was a debate to be had over whether — for instance — Sharia Councils should be recognised.
“At present these are not formalised and not even recognised by some Muslims. But if they were unified as is the Beth Din, the Jewish Court, then there may be an argument for recognising that they can resolve certain disputes within the Islamic community.”
He added that there was also a strong case for giving recognising as valid a Muslim marriage ceremony, without requiring a civil Register Office ceremony to take place.
“Muslims are disadvantaged in this respect in a way that Anglicans, Quakers, Jews, Catholics, are not,“ he said.
And here we get to the crux of the issue, if muslims were given the right to have a religious ceremony without a civil ceremony - that would only bring them into line with christian denominations and Jews.“At present these are not formalised and not even recognised by some Muslims. But if they were unified as is the Beth Din, the Jewish Court, then there may be an argument for recognising that they can resolve certain disputes within the Islamic community.”
He added that there was also a strong case for giving recognising as valid a Muslim marriage ceremony, without requiring a civil Register Office ceremony to take place.
“Muslims are disadvantaged in this respect in a way that Anglicans, Quakers, Jews, Catholics, are not,“ he said.
Quote
Jeremy Rosenblatt, a barrister specialising in international child law, said: “If the Archbishop is merely talking about giving some recognition to Sharia marriage or divorce — but excluding the allowing of multiple wives — then that is one thing.”
The Jewish “get”, the orthodox divorce, was incoporated into the law in this country in the sense that if a husband refused to grant it to his wife then she could refuse him a decree absolute, he said. “But if we are talking about recognising aspects of Shaira that allow for multiple wives, for example, that is very concerning.”
So there are things we are comfortable with, and there are things we are uncomfortable with. That's fine, that is where the debate is, and that is a debate that Rowan Williams tried to contribute to before he was misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented.The Jewish “get”, the orthodox divorce, was incoporated into the law in this country in the sense that if a husband refused to grant it to his wife then she could refuse him a decree absolute, he said. “But if we are talking about recognising aspects of Shaira that allow for multiple wives, for example, that is very concerning.”
In a blog I read some have tried to jump on comments from the "Islamic Medical Association" of the UK about how female doctors should not expose their forearms to wash as it is immodest. The Telegraph picked it up, said that a couple of medical students had refused to wash, and the usual 'mad muslims' began.
Trouble is no-one bother to investigate this IMA. Turns out it is run out of a house, has one spokesman, speaking for himself. In turn, the medical schools rightly refused to tolerate any such nonsense, nor have refusers been widespread or supported by muslim doctors.
Someone is searching hard for a stick to beat the muslim populations of the west with. It looks deeply sinister to me.
Post by: wooderson on February 11, 2008, 03:55:17 PM
Quote
subtlety, nuance, & intellectualism.
While not as catchy as "rock'n'roll, dope and f-ing in the streets," and perhaps a little less idealistic than "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" - I think I could join a political party which took this as a motto.
Post by: roo_ster on February 12, 2008, 07:17:56 AM
Quote
subtlety, nuance, & intellectualism.
While not as catchy as "rock'n'roll, dope and f-ing in the streets," and perhaps a little less idealistic than "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" - I think I could join a political party which took this as a motto.
My use of the terms was sardonic. A common reaction on the left when they say something that gets others all wound up is to claim that folks did not understand the nuance of their exposition, when the reality is that their words were understood quite well.
Post by: roo_ster on February 12, 2008, 07:34:46 AM
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/archbishop-of-canterbury-sharia-law-in.html
[The following is his blog posting, though I did not stuff it in a quote box to avoid nesting quote boxes]
Cranmer has reflected much on this statement by the present incumbent of the See of Canterbury, and the media furore which has ensued (indeed, all over the world). As he was writing this article, his original headline echoed the words of Oliver Cromwell to the Rump Parliament: In the name of God, go!, for that was his feeling on the matter, and Cranmer has for a very long time been quite patient with his successor. The man has become a liability: Roman Catholics are dismissive, Non-conformists bemused, Anglicans are incensed, Downing Street incandescent, and the Bishop of Rochester completely silent.
And yet Dr Williams did not advocate Sharia law; he said quite distinctly that aspects of it might be incorporated into British law. He said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for constructive accommodation with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction.
Asked if the adoption of Shari'a law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said that certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system.
It is this statement which exposes the barefaced hypocrisy of the present government, for New Labour has already permitted Sharia principles to be applied to Muslims and not to other British citizens. While the Prime Ministers spokesman insisted that British law would be based on British values, he admitted that concessions had already been made in specific instances, such as a relaxation of the law on stamp duty to avoid it being paid twice when Sharia-compliant mortgages were used. And husbands with multiple wives have been given permission to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long review, and this will lead inexorably to different pension rights and exemption from death duties. Once the Government recognised and legitimised polygamy, it is only a matter of time before legislative creep demands further accommodating exemptions.
And yet the Archbishops naivety is astonishing. He treats Radio 4 as if it were an Oxford theological college, and assumes that his audience is made up of academics with the ability to dissect and analyse words with his professorial precision.
Sharia may be a complex and convoluted legal system, but it means only one thing in the UK: oppression, barbarism and injustice. This judgement may in itself be unjust, but the word is alien and, like jihad, has taken on its own meaning. Sharia law is in fact profoundly complex, and varies in interpretation and application from Islamic community to Islamic community. In one place, one may be publicly flogged merely for being in the presence of a member of the opposite sex, in another, one may be hanged. And it is the women and children who are executed, since the word of the man outweighs all others. Shari'a covers religious rituals, behaviour, dress codes, grooming and diet, and also legislates in matters of finance, trade, marriage and family in short, it is a religio-political system for the whole of life. While the Archbishop may have been referring to the first of these the private realm it is the application of Sharia in the latter the public realm which is utterly unacceptable in a modern, democratic and free society.
Either Dr Williams knew what he was saying, or how his words would be interpreted, which would be an abdication of his authority, or he was simply utterly na?ve, in which case he should be removed from Canterbury. That the Archbishop has not been clear, and that he has permitted his words to be taken to imply his support for the application of Sharia in the public realm, is a grievous error of judgement, and for this reason alone he ought to consider his position. It is politically unacceptable that the words of the leader of the Established Church should embolden those who advocate a parallel system of law for any group. He has given succour to those who would establish an Islamic theocracy in the UK, and has hastened the day when 'Mary's Dowry' becomes another room in Mohammed's Dar al-Islam.
And Cranmer is not here talking of occasional exemptions. To those who insist that the UK should not tolerate any such exemptions from the law for different faith groups, you might consider that Sikhs are already exempt from having to wear crash helmets, and Sikhs also uniquely enjoy the right to carry a knife (kirpan) in public. And how many of Cranmers communicants were in agreement with him that Roman Catholic adoption agencies ought to be exempt from equality legislation? And there are also Jewish and Roman Catholic matrimonial tribunals, but these are not empowered to pass judgement which are binding in the civil courts. The rabbinical granting of a divorce or a canonical annulment are not civil dissolutions of marriage: the civil courts must ultimately grant the decree. But Sharia law does not make any such distinction, for it refuses to recognise the civil authority.
Sharia was judged in 2003 by the European Court of Human Rights to be antithetical to the foundations of democracy (and the principles of the Enlightenment) because its rulings on inheritance, women's rights and religious freedom violated human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights.
But what a pity the Archbishop didnt hit the headlines over the abortion holocaust, or over poverty and deprivation, or over the incessant erosion of our ancient and hard-won liberties. Instead of proposing the introduction of Sharia law to Britain, why did Dr Williams not speak out on behalf of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the 23-year-old Afghan student journalist sentenced to death for downloading anti-Islamic material from the internet?
Article XXVI of the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England talks 'Of the unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments':
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometime the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments; yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority, we may use their ministry both in hearing the word of God and in the receiving of the sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty by just judgement, be deposed.'
For those who judge Dr Williams to be 'evil', therein lies the mechanism for the removal of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and yet it is undeniable that he does not speak for the Church of England on this matter. And in a curious kind of way, Cranmer is most grateful to him for raising this subject, for how else will the British people ever wake up to what is unfolding before their very eyes? While His Holiness has had a few things to say on the matter, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has been decidedly trappist. And one wonders why the Archbishop has not consulted the thousands of British Muslims who would find the whole concept of a British Shari'a utterly repugnant. Indeed, many came here to escape its oppressive injustices. These British Muslims are quite content with liberal democracy, and it is this which must be defended at all costs against the politicians and prelates who would seek to destroy it.
God forbid that Britain should ever return to the days when religious leaders should determine guilt or innocence, or legislate on matters of crime and punishment. For some of us, those memories are all too acute and dreadfully painful.
===============
Post by: roo_ster on February 12, 2008, 07:47:54 AM
Quote from: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
It is uncomfortably true that this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a 'market' element, a competition for loyalty as Shachar admits. But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.
"It seems unavoidable" if you are not willing to defend the bastions of Western civilization and decency against the savage hordes who seek its destruction.
"It seems unavoidable," is the rationalization of the cultural suicide and of the moral cripple who can not summon the intestinal fortitude to look cultures in the face and make value judgments.
If one of the sharia-loving barbarians does not want to face "...stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty...," the simplest answer is to go back to their country of origin.
Also, Williams gets it wrong: it is not really a matter of culture vs state, it is culture vs culture, as the state is a function/derivative of the culture.
Williams and other fools who advocate a multi-cultural society (vs multi-ethnic) fail to note that such societies only last with an oppressive central government that use force to keep the cultures in its bounds from breaking out into violent conflict.
Well-educated, nuanced, subtle, intellectual fools.
Post by: Iain on February 12, 2008, 08:19:54 AM
...claim that folks did not understand the nuance of their exposition, when the reality is that their words were understood quite well.
That might apply to you, I'm not entirely convinced. But every single person who thought that Williams was advocating stonings, or a parallel legal system simply spectacularly missed his point, deliberately or not.
Quote
And yet Dr Williams did not advocate Shari’a law; he said quite distinctly that ‘aspects’ of it might be incorporated into British law. He said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for ‘constructive accommodation’ with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction.
Asked if the adoption of Shari'a law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said that certain conditions of Shari’a ‘are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system’.
from your blog post. Asked if the adoption of Shari'a law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said that certain conditions of Shari’a ‘are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system’.
I feel I should point out that Cranmer, if he is writing a blog, is only doing so through the very serious sin of employing a medium. He died in 1556, which I'm sure you knew, you meant Carey who is the only living former ABC. So we actually know nothing about whether Cranmer is an islamophobe*
Quote
It is politically unacceptable that the words of the leader of the Established Church should embolden those who advocate a parallel system of law for any group. He has given succour to those who would establish an Islamic theocracy in the UK,
Maybe that is true, but again those who he might have emboldened constitute a tiny percentage of the British muslim population as Cranmer tacitly concedes later on . If he did 'embolden' that is hardly a serious matter, and his only sin is to have engaged in the debate in the position that he holds. He has been politically naive:
Quote
I cannot defend Dr Williams either. He is in effect the chief executive of the Church of England, which is the state-established church of his country. As Archbishop of Canterbury he is not quite the counterpart of the Pope (Queen Elizabeth II is technically the supreme head of the church), but almost. The issue is not whether his remarks were sensible and reasonable (which they were), but about whether he can do the demanding job of holding this figurehead position, and manage the appearances and the politics, without causing his church to fall apart in social and political discord.
The cruel fact is that by provoking this huge row he has shown that he is unsuitable. (For the second time. Remember, he also took a position on homosexuality — one that I mostly agree with — that has caused a worldwide rift in Anglicanism as all the conservative African churches recoiled in horror. Bad move.) I hate to say it, but the people who say he lacks the leadership skills for his job are basically right.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005376.html#moreThe cruel fact is that by provoking this huge row he has shown that he is unsuitable. (For the second time. Remember, he also took a position on homosexuality — one that I mostly agree with — that has caused a worldwide rift in Anglicanism as all the conservative African churches recoiled in horror. Bad move.) I hate to say it, but the people who say he lacks the leadership skills for his job are basically right.
I can't disagree.
Back to the blog of the deceased:
Quote
The rabbinical granting of a divorce or a canonical annulment are not civil dissolutions of marriage: the civil courts must ultimately grant the decree. But Shari’a law does not make any such distinction, for it refuses to recognise the civil authority.
But it would have to if it were to function under British law. The debate is about whether this is the true nature of sharia (and I'm not convinced that, living or dead, Cranmer is an expert) and how any future integration of aspects of sharia, only pertaining to civil matters, could be worked, within the boundaries of British law and human rights. The latter is a special interest of Williams.
It is theoretical, and Williams was turgid, and he has been misunderstand and distorted. That is partly his fault, and he has publicly accepted that, but it is not all is fault.
Quote
The Beth Din system of tribunals for settling certain matters in the Jewish community is already operating in various parts of the country. And more generally, if two parties want to settle a matter out of court by having a religious or cultural authority figure make the necessary judgment, it is hard to see how the legal system of a free society could deny them that right. In the USA people go to paralegal mediators to work out divorce matters and to various TV programs for minor financial and family disputes. The accommodation necessary to allow that some people want to go to a rabbi or a mullah for decisions on such matters that they will agree to regard as binding is virtually no accommodation at all.
Dr Williams was merely musing about the beneficial effects such developments might have on legal and theological aspects of our culture. He was not saying that a thousand years of British law was going to be swept away and replaced by sharia in Muslim-dominated British cities, with councils of mullahs in the back streets of Leicester and Bradford determining sentences of stoning or flogging or cutting off of hands for criminal offenses that the population had elected to keep out of the hands of the secular legal system.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005376.html#moreDr Williams was merely musing about the beneficial effects such developments might have on legal and theological aspects of our culture. He was not saying that a thousand years of British law was going to be swept away and replaced by sharia in Muslim-dominated British cities, with councils of mullahs in the back streets of Leicester and Bradford determining sentences of stoning or flogging or cutting off of hands for criminal offenses that the population had elected to keep out of the hands of the secular legal system.
This is only about muslims. Had Williams talked about Jewish law, or Sikh arbitration, there would have been no media response, or more accurately, no response that we didn't recognise for what it is.
Were it not about muslims I'm sure the media would be getting their usual bollocking around here, which brings me neatly to:
*
Quote
Bash the Bishop! This is The Sun's considered, intelligent and erudite judgement upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. It encapsulates everything that is wrong with the country's crass, superficial, unintelligent 24-hour media, in which everything has to be reduced to a 'soundbite' for the masses to passively absorb.
And here is the Daily Mail's astounding contribution to the debate, under the heading: 'Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?'
And presently, the idiotic readership (or rather the readership who have bothered to vote) record 37% for Abu Hamza and 63% for the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is tabloid rabble rousing and mob mentality at its worst.
And yet, like it or not, this is the postmodern vernacular, and it is incumbent upon all Christians to communicate the gospel in season and out of season in terms which people can comprehend. It was not for nothing that the Early Church wrestled with communicating Hebrew theology and the incarnation of a Jewish Messiah to a Greek audience who understood nothing of Hebrew linguistic nuances or Jewish beliefs.
If only Dr Williams had spoken of 'sharia shame', or given them a headline like 'shirk off sharia', he would have been exalted as a great leader. But this, to him, would be supping with the devil. Much better to be theologically and politically authentic and true to one's convictions than to scratch itching ears. That is, after all, the stuff of which prophets are made, and the Lord told us that they are never accepted in their home town...
And here is the Daily Mail's astounding contribution to the debate, under the heading: 'Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?'
And presently, the idiotic readership (or rather the readership who have bothered to vote) record 37% for Abu Hamza and 63% for the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is tabloid rabble rousing and mob mentality at its worst.
And yet, like it or not, this is the postmodern vernacular, and it is incumbent upon all Christians to communicate the gospel in season and out of season in terms which people can comprehend. It was not for nothing that the Early Church wrestled with communicating Hebrew theology and the incarnation of a Jewish Messiah to a Greek audience who understood nothing of Hebrew linguistic nuances or Jewish beliefs.
If only Dr Williams had spoken of 'sharia shame', or given them a headline like 'shirk off sharia', he would have been exalted as a great leader. But this, to him, would be supping with the devil. Much better to be theologically and politically authentic and true to one's convictions than to scratch itching ears. That is, after all, the stuff of which prophets are made, and the Lord told us that they are never accepted in their home town...
Strangely enough - http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/02/bash-bishop.html
That's hardly a serious charge to lay at a mans soul. It is probably a disqualification for high office in any church, but that says more about the state of the church, and the public "debate", than it does about Rowan Williams.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 12, 2008, 11:45:35 AM
Feel free to continue on the ego trip. It is amusing in a twisted sort of way.
Post by: keeleon on February 12, 2008, 12:38:05 PM
My question is, why does this even have to be addressed?
Let's say I am a Muslim man, and I have a dispute over rent with my landlord. We both agree that we would rather go to a mosque and have (whoever) make the decision over what is fair for us. Why does the Govt. have to be involved with that at all? If we both agree to the (whoever's) decision, then that is the end of it. If I am told to pay and I refuse to, is that where the problem lies, in the punishment? Because the (whoever) can't "legally" garnish my wages, or put me in prison, or execute me? If I refused to pay however, wouldn't that then mean that I decided against following the "Sharia" law, and then it would default to the "British" law? And that would be the same as not agreeing in the first place. It is no different then if my landlord and I decide to do whatever "Dr. Laura" says about our deal, as long as we both agree and follow through. Hell, I don't even think it's illegal to imprison someone or chop off their hand with their permission.
As far as multiple wives goes, what is it that they want that the current law couldn't give them? If they are only worried about the sharia law, then why would they care if the govt recognized their multiple marriages? All that does is give you a tax write-off, and make death arbitration easier. There is nothing illegal with living with and sleeping with multiple women as far as I know. And, if you want your assets divided evenly, then write a freaking will, that states, you want arbitration under sharia law.
I just don't get why there has to be any change at all. Can't they just do whatever they want as long as it is legal under British law? Or is it that they want to be able to legally execute people for sitting in the wrong section at Starbucks, and various other things that are currently illegal?
Post by: Iain on February 12, 2008, 01:13:02 PM
Quote
And yet Dr Williams did not advocate Shari’a law; he said quite distinctly that ‘aspects’ of it might be incorporated into British law. He said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and called for ‘constructive accommodation’ with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction.
If there is an inequity there as Williams suggests, then there is a possible need to consider how it might addressed whilst preserving human rights and acting in accordance with British law. That is as tentative as the paper seems to have been.
Post by: De Selby on February 12, 2008, 06:16:04 PM
Quote
We both agree that we would rather go to a mosque and have (whoever) make the decision over what is fair for us. Why does the Govt. have to be involved with that at all? If we both agree to the (whoever's) decision, then that is the end of it.
Because it forces people to stick to their contracts-you can make a contract with anyone for anything you want, but unless a court will enforce it, the contract is meaningless. That's how arbitration systems work-if you couldn't have a valid contract to arbitrate, everyone who lost an arbitration would just go to court, thus defeating the whole point of agreeing to arbitrate in the first place.
Quote
And, if you want your assets divided evenly, then write a freaking will, that states, you want arbitration under sharia law.
You can't just do this-Courts don't enforce wills, agreements, or anything else just because they are written. A court needs legal authority to enforce such things, and that is what the system would be if the Archbishop's broad idea were instituted.
Post by: keeleon on February 12, 2008, 06:47:53 PM
Quote
Because it forces people to stick to their contracts-you can make a contract with anyone for anything you want, but unless a court will enforce it, the contract is meaningless. That's how arbitration systems work-if you couldn't have a valid contract to arbitrate, everyone who lost an arbitration would just go to court, thus defeating the whole point of agreeing to arbitrate in the first place.
Exactly my point, if they weren't going to honor the sharia's "decision" as though it were their law, then at THAT point you take it to the "official" court because they have shown that they don't want to be bound by sharia law. I wouldn't want to be bound by that law, no matter how much the muslim I was dealing with felt that's how it would have to be. If a muslim wants to be an asshat and renege on agreeing to go by the arbitration of sharia, then that is between him and the person he had a disagreement with. Of course if he does then he most likely gets outcast from the "inner circle" or whatever, and probably gets a (n illegal) death warrant on his head.
Quote
You can't just do this-Courts don't enforce wills, agreements, or anything else just because they are written. A court needs legal authority to enforce such things, and that is what the system would be if the Archbishop's broad idea were instituted.
Umm, I'm pretty sure that courts actually enforce enforce wills and contracts. That is why there are wills and contracts. So that the courts have something based on their laws to look at and decide what needs to be done. The paperwork would have to be filled out in compliance with the "british law", but if it was, they would have to follow it. If the muslims don't like filling out their paperwork properly, then tough toenails, I say.
This is all assuming that the changes would be optional, since it only really matters if they apply to everyone.
Post by: De Selby on February 12, 2008, 09:20:37 PM
Quote
Exactly my point, if they weren't going to honor the sharia's "decision" as though it were their law, then at THAT point you take it to the "official" court because they have shown that they don't want to be bound by sharia law.
Uh, no-you are confusing the issue here. One who never made a contract to have disputes arbitrated under the alternative law would never be held to it. It is a contract issue, not a "sharia vs. other law" issue.
The question is: Can you sign a contract personally to have a specific dispute arbitrated under the law of your choosing, and then expect that contract to be considered legally binding?
Quote
If a muslim wants to be an asshat and renege on agreeing to go by the arbitration of sharia, then that is between him and the person he had a disagreement with.
Again, which means that people are able to break a contract they signed with full information. Do you think that's fair?
Or do you not believe in permitting people to freely contract between themselves?
Quote
Umm, I'm pretty sure that courts actually enforce enforce wills and contracts.
Not without legal grounds for doing so, they don't. Wills and contracts get invalidated all the time for failure to comply with some statutory requirement, or because there just plain isn't a legal basis for enforcing the particular type of contract provision or will.
If a court enforced all contracts, a contract to apply sharia to a particular dispute would have to be honored, wouldn't it? Do you think that enforcing contracts is a good thing? That's the premise behind this whole thing.
You are talking apples and oranges here. The question presented by the British Cleric here is: "Should Muslims be able to enter into cotnracts with each other so that they can arbitrate disputes according to a system that is agreed upon in advance?"
Jews can do this, so can Christians. And so can business people, who submit contract disputes to arbitration with pre-selected laws (frequently not British law-they can select any law they want to apply from anywhere in the world in arbitration subject to certain limitations on the judgments) all the time.
But this is an issue for Muslims, because there is media bias and frothing at the mouth any time the word "sharia" is ever mentioned.
Iain, I believe you are correct in noting that if this same reaction were applied to Judaism, we would all rightly call it what it is. And what it is....is something bad for all peoples.
Post by: keeleon on February 13, 2008, 05:56:00 AM
If I sign a contract with my friend that if I default on owed money, he gets to kick me in the balls as payment, and I decide against, I think he should be able to take me to small claims court and hae them enforce the contract. Of course, I can't see a sane person signing THAT contract, unless they are part of some crazy organization, so if your sharia requires you to agree to be beheaded if you look at a man wrong, then that really is your problem. The question doesn't seem to me to be about whether muslim's rights are protected, but about whether private agreements between conflicting people's can be resolved the way they were agreed to be resolved originally.
In my first example I did mean that the first man makes a contract under "sharia law", and then decides to renege on it. He has at that point given up the "right" to private arbitration, and then the contract would have to go to the public court system to be ruled on. Which means, you can hav all of your "culturally correct" stuff in there, but also make sure you follow the law of the land as well.
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 13, 2008, 07:57:09 PM
If I sign a contract with my friend that if I default on owed money, he gets to kick me in the balls as payment, and I decide against, I think he should be able to take me to small claims court and hae them enforce the contract.
The contract would be unenforceable on ground of illegality. One cannot enforce a contract to perform a illegal action, and assault/battery is illegal.
Post by: keeleon on February 14, 2008, 06:53:43 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 14, 2008, 06:58:13 AM
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
Post by: keeleon on February 14, 2008, 07:11:00 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 14, 2008, 07:25:26 AM
If a woman is being oppressed in a culture there should at least be a way for her to leave and be safe if she chooses. It seems that might not be the case if certain laws wee changed.
That would be WHY a lot of women left the backwards toilets they lived in in the sandbox and moved to the UK!
And...now it's following them there, see one of my previous posts. I would think, as they said, they might be a little bit unhappy about that development!
Post by: De Selby on February 14, 2008, 04:57:22 PM
I doubt that it calls for beheadings and hangings.
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
Of course you know this from unbiased research into the Islamic laws governing gender. Or not.
It's still missing the issue-no one is calling for repealing England's equal protection laws. It is a private arbitration system, not an overhaul of parliament, that is being discussed. I'm not sure if you missed that, or if the facts just aren't relevant to your "analysis."
Post by: De Selby on February 14, 2008, 04:59:18 PM
So it really boils down to, they want to treat women like dirt legally? It really would put help shed some light on the whole topic, if someone could explain what exactly Sharia means, and how it actually is beneficial to the muslim community to incorporate it. For that matter I wouldn't mind an explanation of why the Jews and the Catholics need exemptions. Of course I'm from the US, so I may see things differently, but laws do exist for a reason. If a woman is being oppressed in a culture there should at least be a way for her to leave and be safe if she chooses. It seems that might not be the case if certain laws wee changed.
No, it's not because "They want to treat women like dirt legally"; it's hard to imagine how even an extremist would be able to set up an arbitration system that could bind people's personal behaviors. The issues are primarily marriage, divorce and contract-which is what most of the body of sharia deals with (like 99 percent is contracts and permissible business practices).
The problem is that people don't like Muslims, so they hyperventilate anytime they hear a word associated with Islam.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 14, 2008, 05:16:17 PM
I doubt that it calls for beheadings and hangings.
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
Of course you know this from unbiased research into the Islamic laws governing gender. Or not.
It's still missing the issue-no one is calling for repealing England's equal protection laws. It is a private arbitration system, not an overhaul of parliament, that is being discussed. I'm not sure if you missed that, or if the facts just aren't relevant to your "analysis."
Did you read the article I posted from a woman in the UK who dared speak out?
Are you a Muslim woman in the UK who fled from a land to get away from that s***, and now finds it following her? No?
I didn't think so!
Post by: keeleon on February 14, 2008, 05:32:13 PM
Quote
The issues are primarily marriage, divorce and contract-which is what most of the body of sharia deals with (like 99 percent is contracts and permissible business practices).
OK, so what specifically do muslims need according to their sharia that is not currently available to them? That is what we should be discussing. If you want to accuse people of getting defensive over muslims, (which I would say they havea right to, given most of the things we hear about), then you should help diffuse the tension by pointing out specifically what the muslims want and how it ISN'T some terrible thing for society that causes the UK to turn into a middle east cesspool.
Post by: De Selby on February 14, 2008, 05:41:24 PM
I doubt that it calls for beheadings and hangings.
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
But as for the status of women? Well, there likely isn't any.
Status for women, that is.
Of course you know this from unbiased research into the Islamic laws governing gender. Or not.
It's still missing the issue-no one is calling for repealing England's equal protection laws. It is a private arbitration system, not an overhaul of parliament, that is being discussed. I'm not sure if you missed that, or if the facts just aren't relevant to your "analysis."
Did you read the article I posted from a woman in the UK who dared speak out?
Are you a Muslim woman in the UK who fled from a land to get away from that s***, and now finds it following her? No?
I didn't think so!
Like I said-if a Muslim woman in the UK said it in a UK paper, it must be true, right?
Yeah, that's rational.
Oh wait...not only isn't that rational, it doesn't address the issue, which is that the subject raised here has nothing to do with women's rights in the UK.
Post by: De Selby on February 14, 2008, 05:47:36 PM
Quote
The issues are primarily marriage, divorce and contract-which is what most of the body of sharia deals with (like 99 percent is contracts and permissible business practices).
OK, so what specifically do muslims need according to their sharia that is not currently available to them?
For one thing, to be able to have their marriages considered valid the same way that a Jewish or Christian religious marriage is legally valid. Also, to be able to enter into marriage agreements that specify that their own rules of divorce will apply.
Quote
That is what we should be discussing. If you want to accuse people of getting defensive over muslims, (which I would say they havea right to, given most of the things we hear about), then you should help diffuse the tension by pointing out specifically what the muslims want and how it ISN'T some terrible thing for society that causes the UK to turn into a middle east cesspool.
Iain has posted pages doing this on this very thread-but the issue is ignored, and the repeated hype about making England into an Arab monarchy gets tossed all over again.
Some people refuse to hear anything reasonable about Islam because they hate it the same way that many people used to hate Judaism. It is a sinister development of the 21st century-all the same rumors and slants that were once manufactured against Jews are being recycled for use against Muslims. I'm sad to see we've all learned so little, and that few people recognize how dangerous this atmosphere of religious bashing really is.
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 14, 2008, 05:59:32 PM
Like I said-if a Muslim woman in the UK said it in a UK paper, it must be true, right?
Yeah, that's rational.
Oh wait...not only isn't that rational, it doesn't address the issue, which is that the subject raised here has nothing to do with women's rights in the UK.
Yeah, that's rational.
Oh wait...not only isn't that rational, it doesn't address the issue, which is that the subject raised here has nothing to do with women's rights in the UK.
Well, it does though. It is not easy for a woman to make a decision in the face of religious laws. The more expansive those laws are, and the more recognized they are by civil authorities, the more difficult it is for her to choose her actions freely. Many traditional/fundamentalist religions, including many groups within Islam, effectively restrict a woman's right to make her own decisions.
The more powerful and expansive the community and its control over its members is, the more difficult it is for a woman to act against the decrees of the community. Ultimately, she may be left with a choice of knuckling under completely or escaping. And in Islam more than most other religions, she may find it difficult to escape with her life.
Any governmental sanction of a independent legal authority within the community impacts the degree to which women are constrained within in.
I still am mostly in favor of communities using their own laws internally, but it comes at a cost, and a large portion of the cost is born by women. Insularity can be great and it can spectacularly harsh.
I speak from experience.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 14, 2008, 05:59:45 PM
People are running around today screaming "Kill the cartoonist!" because of the Danish cartoons.
It's also a fact that under sharia, women are treated like objects, and in many cases, like cattle.
I'm sorry. Your religion needs some serious reform, and you need to face that before the more extreme versions become all that's left of it.
Post by: De Selby on February 14, 2008, 06:03:56 PM
Shootinstudent.
People are running around today screaming "Kill the cartoonist!" because of the Danish cartoons.
It's also a fact that under sharia, women are treated like objects, and in many cases, like cattle.
People are running around today screaming "Kill the cartoonist!" because of the Danish cartoons.
It's also a fact that under sharia, women are treated like objects, and in many cases, like cattle.
And someone with a gun today ran into a school and shot six people. It is a fact that thousands are murdered by people using guns every year. Yet I think we can all see how completely illogical it is to declare gun owners as a whole responsible for this activity; indeed, that would be ridiculed and rightly so. You are applying precisely the same logic to Muslims as is used against gun owners by the anti-gun cheering section.
Quote
I'm sorry. Your religion needs some serious reform, and you need to face that before the more extreme versions become all that's left of it.
You don't even know what my religion teaches, you take "a Muslim woman said it in a UK paper" as something resembling a hard fact about its theology, and here you are declaring that it is "in need of serious reform."
It's amazing that you aren't able to see the logical hoola hoops you must jump through to reach these conclusions.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 14, 2008, 06:34:21 PM
Whatever. I hear that from far too many moderates.
As I keep saying, you're just dooming your own religion. Unless the spreading extremism is militantly rejected, it's going to overtake it. Within three generations, there will be no peaceful sorts left, all that's left is going to be the religious equivalent of a rabid animal, and it will have to be put down to save civilization.
Suit yourself.
Post by: keeleon on February 14, 2008, 06:47:39 PM
Post by: De Selby on February 14, 2008, 09:18:23 PM
Fine. Ignore the spreading wildfire, then.
Whatever. I hear that from far too many moderates.
As I keep saying, you're just dooming your own religion. Unless the spreading extremism is militantly rejected, it's going to overtake it. Within three generations, there will be no peaceful sorts left, all that's left is going to be the religious equivalent of a rabid animal, and it will have to be put down to save civilization.
Suit yourself.
Whatever. I hear that from far too many moderates.
As I keep saying, you're just dooming your own religion. Unless the spreading extremism is militantly rejected, it's going to overtake it. Within three generations, there will be no peaceful sorts left, all that's left is going to be the religious equivalent of a rabid animal, and it will have to be put down to save civilization.
Suit yourself.
Again, how did you come up with these predictions about the religion without any apparent study of the problem?
A woman's single line in a UK newspaper does not sufficiently inform one to speak on the direction of an entire religion. Neither does looking at pictures of some kooks behaving like gang members.
I genuinely want to know what it is that, in your mind, convinces you that you've actually got enough information to make the statement you just did.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 15, 2008, 07:09:12 AM
A woman's single line in a UK newspaper does not sufficiently inform one to speak on the direction of an entire religion. Neither does looking at pictures of some kooks behaving like gang members.
Wasn't it fun watching everyone going to such great lengths to prove how unbiased they were and how those people's actions were completely unrelated to others of their race?
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 15, 2008, 07:57:51 AM
A woman's single line in a UK newspaper does not sufficiently inform one to speak on the direction of an entire religion. Neither does looking at pictures of some kooks behaving like gang members.
Neither does an apologist on a message board, whose primary message seems to be that anyone but him is not credible.
Post by: keeleon on February 15, 2008, 08:27:04 AM
So I ask again, what specifically do the muslims want that they can't already do? SPELL IT OUT FOR ME. If you did, then you might either diffuse the "hatred" you ar talking about if it is something completely innocent, or you will be admitting that the people claiming these laws are demeaning to women are correct. Which is it?
Post by: De Selby on February 16, 2008, 01:20:22 PM
Like I said-if a Muslim woman in the UK said it in a UK paper, it must be true, right?
Yeah, that's rational.
Oh wait...not only isn't that rational, it doesn't address the issue, which is that the subject raised here has nothing to do with women's rights in the UK.
Yeah, that's rational.
Oh wait...not only isn't that rational, it doesn't address the issue, which is that the subject raised here has nothing to do with women's rights in the UK.
Well, it does though. It is not easy for a woman to make a decision in the face of religious laws. The more expansive those laws are, and the more recognized they are by civil authorities, the more difficult it is for her to choose her actions freely. Many traditional/fundamentalist religions, including many groups within Islam, effectively restrict a woman's right to make her own decisions.
This is as much an argument for banning Jewish and Christian marriage as it is Muslim. It really has nothing to do with the proposed system, which (for all the lack of detail) I don't think anyone is advocating should be more expansive than those already available to other religions.
Quote
The more powerful and expansive the community and its control over its members is, the more difficult it is for a woman to act against the decrees of the community. Ultimately, she may be left with a choice of knuckling under completely or escaping. And in Islam more than most other religions, she may find it difficult to escape with her life.
How is this relevant to the issue at hand? If you think that these communities are willing to be lawless enough to kill women who don't do what is demanded of them, what impact is denying them religious rights available to other faiths going to have? If anything, it makes it more dangerous for women and outcasts, because there is less public light on what kinds of agreements and rules these people are trying to make.
Quote
I still am mostly in favor of communities using their own laws internally, but it comes at a cost, and a large portion of the cost is born by women. Insularity can be great and it can spectacularly harsh.
I speak from experience.
I speak from experience.
We all speak from experience. But that doesn't mean that our experience bears directly on the issue at hand, or that our conclusions are necessarily good.
Post by: De Selby on February 16, 2008, 01:24:34 PM
A woman's single line in a UK newspaper does not sufficiently inform one to speak on the direction of an entire religion. Neither does looking at pictures of some kooks behaving like gang members.
Neither does an apologist on a message board, whose primary message seems to be that anyone but him is not credible.
Absolutely right-you do not need to take my word for anything I'm saying here. See for yourself what the relevant political and religious authorities have to say, and read Iain's excellent links detailing the statement that gave rise to this whole controversy.
You will note that most of what I'm saying here is that the Islam bashing is based on bad information (like single lines in newspapers) and stereotyping. I don't think that constitutes apologetics, or anything more than common sense. But some people will refuse to see the parallels to anti-semitism in this (obvious though they are), because it's become a popular mantra that Islam is "more dangerous" than any other religion.
Sometimes trying to get people to ignroe popular prejudices is harder than convincing the IRS to give up on a tax bill.
Post by: De Selby on February 16, 2008, 03:22:31 PM
If she doesn't then that is your fault for having multiple greedy wives, who obviously don't love each other. "Legal marriage" is only about property and money. If you actually "love" someone then it shouldn't matter one bit what the govt.'s opinion is on the matter.
So I ask again, what specifically do the muslims want that they can't already do? SPELL IT OUT FOR ME. If you did, then you might either diffuse the "hatred" you ar talking about if it is something completely innocent, or you will be admitting that the people claiming these laws are demeaning to women are correct. Which is it?
So I ask again, what specifically do the muslims want that they can't already do? SPELL IT OUT FOR ME. If you did, then you might either diffuse the "hatred" you ar talking about if it is something completely innocent, or you will be admitting that the people claiming these laws are demeaning to women are correct. Which is it?
Well, here are some examples:
Some people might want the right to have a marriage conducted by their own religious custom be considered legally valid. As Iain points out, a Christian ceremony or a Jewish ceremony currently substitutes for civil ceremonies in granting a marriage. So why not for Muslims?
And, once two people are married, they can't just agree to divy up the property any way they want, in either the UK or the US. There are property, tax, and family laws that force you to run your marriage in a particular way. Part of the idea behind these arbitration systems is that you get to agree to apply your own religion's laws, if you wish, instead of being forced to settle any marriage dispute in a secular court. Again, it is allowed for other religions, and I see no reason why Muslims should be prohibited from doing this as well.
There's no way, even in theory, that a private arbitration system is going "reach women on the street" and restrict their activity. The closest thing is BridgeWalker's amorphous "but we'll grant validity to their culture and that will be bad" argument, and that's as applicable to Judaism and Christianity with respect to women as it is to Islam.
Post by: BridgeWalker on February 16, 2008, 06:57:44 PM
This is as much an argument for banning Jewish and Christian marriage as it is Muslim. It really has nothing to do with the proposed system, which (for all the lack of detail) I don't think anyone is advocating should be more expansive than those already available to other religions.
Yeah, there are slightly fewer honor killings in the Jewish and Christian communities.
Quote
Yeah, there are slightly fewer honor killings in the Jewish and Christian communities.
Quote
How is this relevant to the issue at hand? If you think that these communities are willing to be lawless enough to kill women who don't do what is demanded of them, what impact is denying them religious rights available to other faiths going to have? If anything, it makes it more dangerous for women and outcasts, because there is less public light on what kinds of agreements and rules these people are trying to make.
I think you missed this:
But this really where you lost me:
You clearly are of the opinion that your position is the only one that makes sense, and that anyone on either side who disputes any of your position, even if merely in how one arrives *at the same conclusion* is lacking in credibility. You seem to define "unbiased" as "agrees with me". The way you have dismissed by experiences as irrelevant without actually knowing what they are is another indication of that.
I used to have to deal with attitudes like yours on a daily basis. I don't anymore. I'm done. Have a nice day.
Quote
I think you missed this:
Quote
I still am mostly in favor of communities using their own laws internally, but it comes at a cost, and a large portion of the cost is born by women. Insularity can be great and it can spectacularly harsh.
But this really where you lost me:
Quote
We all speak from experience. But that doesn't mean that our experience bears directly on the issue at hand, or that our conclusions are necessarily good.
You clearly are of the opinion that your position is the only one that makes sense, and that anyone on either side who disputes any of your position, even if merely in how one arrives *at the same conclusion* is lacking in credibility. You seem to define "unbiased" as "agrees with me". The way you have dismissed by experiences as irrelevant without actually knowing what they are is another indication of that.
I used to have to deal with attitudes like yours on a daily basis. I don't anymore. I'm done. Have a nice day.
Post by: De Selby on February 16, 2008, 07:03:51 PM
Quote
Yeah, there are slightly fewer honor killings in the Jewish and Christian communities.
I don't think there is a shred of data to support this-in places where honor killing is common (like the Arab states), it occurs in every religious group.
In places where it is not common, it's rare for Muslims (like the US).
Quote
You clearly are of the opinion that your position is the only one that makes sense, and that anyone on either side who disputes any of your position, even if merely in how one arrives *at the same conclusion* is lacking in credibility.
The only thing that I am "clearly of the opinion that"....are the things I posted in response to others' comments. I do think that selective attacks on Muslims where Jews and Christians have the same rights (as was pointed out above by our resident UK member, Iain) indicate bias. That seems to be a reasonable basis for concluding that there is bias against Muslims, but maybe you don't agree. Feel free to explain why. If you think your experience will offer something to the discussion, you should share it, instead of just saying "I speak from experience" and then expecting some sort of agreement.
I'm not sure, but I think what you are trying to say is that you think that I believe the things I post, when responding to others and disputing their claims, are correct.
If I didn't think that, I wouldn't post the point. Neither would you, I hope. Is that what you meant?
Post by: longeyes on February 17, 2008, 07:36:16 AM
Quote
And someone with a gun today ran into a school and shot six people. It is a fact that thousands are murdered by people using guns every year. Yet I think we can all see how completely illogical it is to declare gun owners as a whole responsible for this activity; indeed, that would be ridiculed and rightly so. You are applying precisely the same logic to Muslims as is used against gun owners by the anti-gun cheering section.
Then again gun owners aren't massing in the streets shouting "Death to All Non-Gun-Owners!"
Post by: De Selby on February 17, 2008, 11:13:53 AM
Quote
And someone with a gun today ran into a school and shot six people. It is a fact that thousands are murdered by people using guns every year. Yet I think we can all see how completely illogical it is to declare gun owners as a whole responsible for this activity; indeed, that would be ridiculed and rightly so. You are applying precisely the same logic to Muslims as is used against gun owners by the anti-gun cheering section.
Then again gun owners aren't massing in the streets shouting "Death to All Non-Gun-Owners!"
You might see it that way, but to many anti-gunners, it's "gun owners" who are responsible for all of these mass shootings. Look at the way the most recent shooter's "interest in guns" is being played up in the media.
That is where this kind of thinking gets us-bandwagon movements that infringe on everyone's rights, instead of punishing those who are responsible for the crime.