Sharia law in Germany

[Darat]

Yeah, but the Arbitration Act was in 1996.

That was only a piece of new legislation, arbitration in civil matters has been entirely legal and enforced by the legal systems in the UK for literally centuries.

It's a "right" that I've often used and I really dislike how some folk want to remove the right to choose arbitration.

 

[Darat]

Woo! I can't let that pass unchallenged can I?

I know there are all sorts of other arbitration systems. I'm sure I could set up my own, based on Satanic principles, if I wanted to. Major differences between sharia and other ones include:

The scope of sharia; ...snip...

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. I hope it makes sense. but I don't think I was being uninformed or deceitful in my OP. I might rant more later, but that should do for now.

"Sharia" is an umbrella term for a legal system that involves Islam, there is no "a sharia" legal or justice system.

In the UK a "sharia court" (more properly an "arbitration tribunal") is constrained and of the same scope as any Beth Din, it can only deal with matters that we can choose binding arbitration to deal with. Since it is part of the legal system it has to follow the usual legal precept. In another thread someone brought up that in some versions of Sharia a woman's testimony is only worth a quarter of a man's, however that principle could not be used in a Sharia arbitration tribunal in the U. If it was then the tribunal would have acted illegally and any decision made would not be binding, in fact it would be rendered null and void.

ETA: Should have read the rest of the thread before I posted: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8436544#post8436544 - what he said!

 

[Cleon]

That was only a piece of new legislation, arbitration in civil matters has been entirely legal and enforced by the legal systems in the UK for literally centuries.

Ah, ok.

It's a "right" that I've often used and I really dislike how some folk want to remove the right to choose arbitration.

Well, you're not Muslim, so its not your rights they want to curttail.

 

[bit_pattern]

i have no problem with Muslims following sharia rules, or other religious groups folowing their rules, aslong they do not try to force me to follow the nonsense.

Yup. and just as long as it remains subservient to common law; i.e. render unto Caesar and all that...

 

[McHrozni]

Yup. and just as long as it remains subservient to common law; i.e. render unto Caesar and all that...

That's an aspect of Christianity (and a very good one at that) that doesn't quite appear in Islam I'm afraid. Don't expect them to agree to it easily or permanently.

McHrozni

 

[Rasmus]

That may be your opinion, but it is the case in several countries. I mentioned Germany (until 2009) and the Netherlands. And the French Code Pénal, art. 433-21, says:

Wow, 6 months jail and a € 7,500 fine (for the religious minister, BTW).

I trust the judiciary enough to see through if it's indeed a case of innocent "roleplay" or if it's meant bloody serious.

Do you have an actual argument other than two nations that agree with your stance and one that no longer does?

What is the actual reason to not want people have religious marriages, if it's understood that these are not legally recognized? I really don't see it.

 

[A'isha]

Professor Intisar Rabb, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law and Islamic Law at Boston College Law School, explains shari'ah.

 

[Ryokan]

That's an aspect of Christianity (and a very good one at that) that doesn't quite appear in Islam I'm afraid. Don't expect them to agree to it easily or permanently.

McHrozni

Of all the countries where Muslims are the majority, very few of them are actually under Sharia law. Most of them have secular governments and secular law. So it's not a completely foreign concept to them..

 

[crimresearch]

Of all the countries where Muslims are the majority, very few of them are actually under Sharia law. Most of them have secular governments and secular law. So it's not a completely foreign concept to them..

And one could be skeptical and think that even the others are actually run by politicians who just happen to be wrapping themselves *more* heavily in religion and citing shariah when it suits their goals...

 

[bit_pattern]

Don't expect them to agree to it easily or permanently.

Who cares? The point is that any Sharia dispute resolution system can be overridden by a higher court in the event it doesn't comply with law. Simple. People don't have to agree to that, it's just a matter of fact. I have NO problem with Sharia being used to resolve disputes at a low level, it takes strain from an already overburdened legal system, as long as it's findings can be overridden by a higher court if unlawful. I can't see it making a shred of material difference to any other dispute resolution processes individuals in a society might form for themselves.

 

[ddt]

Do you have an actual argument other than two nations that agree with your stance and one that no longer does?

What is the actual reason to not want people have religious marriages, if it's understood that these are not legally recognized? I really don't see it.

Is that understood? I wouldn't want to count the people who don't understand that. I wouldn't even want to count the ministers who don't understand that - e.g.,in Holland many imams are flown in directly from Morocco or other ME countries who don't know the Dutch language, Dutch culture etc., so why would they know Dutch law? - and that's probably the case in other countries too.

Secondly, any religious marriage uses the same vocabulary as a secular marriage. It doesn't say the partners are "religiously married", no, they're "married", they're "husband and wife", and the minister says they have certain obligations towards each other.

The minister doesn't start with a disclaimer "This is only a religious marriage and is null and void for the law. You may disregard all the vows you take here, the police won't come after you, only your neighbors will try to make life a living hell for you if you do so".

In fact, most Abrahamic religions don't even recognize secular marriage, and pretend theirs is the only relevant one. Catholic doctrine is very pronounced in this. AFAIK, only mainstream protestantism is the only religion which consciously says that marriage is the state's business (both Luther and Calvin have explicitly said so).

So yes, I think the State has a legitimate interest in protecting what is sold under the title of "marriage". It does so for a lot of other things, after all.

The State also says that "homeopathic medicine" may not contain health claims that have not been scientifically proved. Or any medicine at all, for that matter, and if you don't disclose the risks properly or try to sell it off-label, you risk a hefty fine.

The State also says that you may only label a product "chocolate" if it has a certain minimum amount of chocolate in it. And not just chocolate, about any food product has been regulated as to its contents.

In the same vein, the State may regulate what's being sold as "marriage". As it's actually the monopolist (in continental Europe) in selling marriages, it also has a legitimate interest in regulating what's being sold by religions as a marriage and to whom.

 

[Rasmus]

Is that understood? I wouldn't want to count the people who don't understand that. I wouldn't even want to count the ministers who don't understand that - e.g.,in Holland many imams are flown in directly from Morocco or other ME countries who don't know the Dutch language, Dutch culture etc., so why would they know Dutch law? - and that's probably the case in other countries too.

It's the law. So, yes, it is understood. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. i.e. if you go to your local church, synagogue or McDonalds thinking what you do there will get you married, the problem is entirely yours, not anybody else's.

Secondly, any religious marriage uses the same vocabulary as a secular marriage. It doesn't say the partners are "religiously married", no, they're "married", they're "husband and wife", and the minister says they have certain obligations towards each other.

So?

The minister doesn't start with a disclaimer "This is only a religious marriage and is null and void for the law. You may disregard all the vows you take here, the police won't come after you, only your neighbors will try to make life a living hell for you if you do so".

So?

Really, I fail to see the actual problem.

If you want to make it illegal for the minister to lie, I've got a long list of stuff we should get out of the way first ...

In fact, most Abrahamic religions don't even recognize secular marriage, and pretend theirs is the only relevant one. Catholic doctrine is very pronounced in this. AFAIK, only mainstream protestantism is the only religion which consciously says that marriage is the state's business (both Luther and Calvin have explicitly said so).

So?

Why should that be relevant? why should anyone care one way or another what these people do or think?

So yes, I think the State has a legitimate interest in protecting what is sold under the title of "marriage". It does so for a lot of other things, after all.

But what they sell as marriage is in no way affected by what people do in their churches. Or at McDonald's, really.

The State also says that "homeopathic medicine" may not contain health claims that have not been scientifically proved. Or any medicine at all, for that matter, and if you don't disclose the risks properly or try to sell it off-label, you risk a hefty fine.

Yes. But for that, you'd need a church actually claiming that it performs a legally recognized marriage.

The State also says that you may only label a product "chocolate" if it has a certain minimum amount of chocolate in it. And not just chocolate, about any food product has been regulated as to its contents.

That is because there is a certain expectation tied to a product called "chocolate". And I just don't see that same problem with church marriages.

In the same vein, the State may regulate what's being sold as "marriage". As it's actually the monopolist (in continental Europe) in selling marriages, it also has a legitimate interest in regulating what's being sold by religions as a marriage and to whom.

Only religions aren't "selling" a product, they are performing a ritual.

I see endless trouble in trying to regulate rituals, religiously or not - based in the individual words used and there would be no benefit.

Plus, even if the odd couple would manage to get a Church marriage without realizing that they aren't really married - they are bound to find out soon enough and can simply get married for real, if they so chose.

I don't think there are enough cases of terminally stupid people that end up in all sorts of actual trouble that would warrant a ban.