Sharia Law in the UK?

[ravdin]

The British people have a long and distinguished history. Their laws and traditions are worth preserving and defending... in Britain.

If you don't like British laws, there's no need to emigrate there. There are plenty of places you can live under Sharia law if that is your preference.

 

[Beerina]

Can't we have Shakira Law instead?

Even Muslims would have to admit that would be a much better god to follow.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The British people have a long and distinguished history. Their laws and traditions are worth preserving and defending... in Britain.

If you don't like British laws, there's no need to emigrate there. There are plenty of places you can live under Sharia law if that is your preference.

Fortunately, nobody has suggested they won't be living under British law if they move here, so your concern is misplaced.

 

[SteveGrenard]

All fine and dandy that the suggestion for Sharia law in Britain be limited to "civil" matters and not criminal ones. But there are gray areas involving religious practices and family
law/situations covered in Sharia that are not criminal matters and not civil either.

I would like to know if violations such as blasphemy, apostasy, practicing other religions, or practicing no religion will be included. Under family law I would like to know how such things as adultery, premarital sex, clothing requirements for women, marrying without parent's approval, etc will be covered. Will these potentially capital crimes be included under civil or criminal law and will British Sharia have jurisdiction?

I wonder if the head of the Anglican Church stopped to realize that Sharia could forbid the practice of his own faith by a convert for example.

 

[ravdin]

Fortunately, nobody has suggested they won't be living under British law if they move here, so your concern is misplaced.

If that's true, then I agree the concern is misplaced. But why is there a push for Sharia law in Britain, then? If there's no conflict with British law, then no one is stopping you from voluntarily practicing a more restrictive system today.

Of course, if the people around you (native and non-native Brits) choose not to dress a certain way or abstain from certain foods, that's your hard luck if it offends you. I certainly hope it will stay that way.

 

[Beerina]

This demonstrates why religious laws are pointless.

They would only apply to people who believe that religion -- yet anyone can opt out of any religion they like, at any time, for any reason. Hence any "punishment" would be voluntary, too.

 

[Darat]

If that's true, then I agree the concern is misplaced. But why is there a push for Sharia law in Britain, then? If there's no conflict with British law, then no one is stopping you from voluntarily practicing a more restrictive system today.

...snip...

Undoubtedly there are some British folk "pushing" for Sharia law but there is no evidence that there are significant number of people doing so. I've asked in one of these threads does any have any data from polls etc.. about the number of British folk who are Muslim that do want Sharia law to be implemented.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I would like to know if violations such as blasphemy, apostasy, practicing other religions, or practicing no religion will be included. Under family law I would like to know how such things as adultery, premarital sex, clothing requirements for women, marrying without parent's approval, etc will be covered. Will these potentially capital crimes be included under civil or criminal law and will British Sharia have jurisdiction?

...snip...

Read his speech and you will see he addresses such points.

 

[Ziggurat]

Undoubtedly there are some British folk "pushing" for Sharia law but there is no evidence that there are significant number of people doing so.

Probably because nobody's tried to figure that out. But the people who want it are also exactly the sort of people to make themselves heard, and to intimidate other members of their community who might feel otherwise to remain silent.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...le',+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do

Tory cohesion spokesman Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.

"But let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

 

[dudalb]

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

That is what gets me about Joe and his ilk. They give Militant Islam a pass for varous reason I won't go into,but violenlly condemn Jews and Christians for the exact same thing.

 

[Big Les]

I posted the context for this comment in the other multi-pager;

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 diverse 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.

Not quite as sensational as reported, but still utterly wrong in my own humble opinion.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Paxman on Newsnight ...

"How do you solve a problem like shari'a?"

Heh.

The hills are alive with the sound of muezzins ...

Fatwas on kaffirs and burqas on women ...

 

[SteveGrenard]

Read his speech and you will see he addresses such points.

I went to the BBC website of the story in the OP and found that I could NOT read his speech, only watch and listen to it. I would much rather do as you recommend and read it and have it in writing.

Do you happen to know a website where a written version might be placed? If I missed
a reference to a written version somewhere else I apologize.

Thanks

 

[kosai]

Undoubtedly there are some British folk "pushing" for Sharia law but there is no evidence that there are significant number of people doing so. I've asked in one of these threads does any have any data from polls etc.. about the number of British folk who are Muslim that do want Sharia law to be implemented.

From the article:

She told BBC News: "Many Muslim commentators and the media are wrongly assuming that all Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

"Various polls have so far indicated that around 40% want Sharia law. Although this is a significant percentage, why ignore the views of the other 60%?"

Was there some reason to doubt those numbers?

I would consider 40% quite significant if it's true.

 

[pomeroo]

The British philosopher Jamie Whyte, born in New Zealand and now residing in London, makes some pertinent observations in his highly entertaining book Crimes Against Logic (McGraw-Hill 2005):

"The desire to avoid ideological debate can lead to even worse crimes than begging the question. Often the result is total incoherence. Consider, for example, the current debate with Islamic fundamentalism. Most Western politicians reject Islamic theocracy and sharia law. They have their various grounds for disapproval: it is insufficiently democratic, sharia law fails to protect women's rights, and so on. These may be good objections, but they suffice for the rejection of Islamic theocracy only if the basic religious beliefs of Islamic fundamentalists are wrong. If Allah really does demand sharia law, as the fundamentalists claim, then we should all adopt it as soon as possible. Despotism and sexism are well worth it if they will save us from the everlasting flames of hell."

"Of course, most Western politicians do reject this Islamic idea about Allah's will. But they won't say so in public. When arguing against sharia law they never point out that Allah does not really exist and so can't really have insisted on any form of law, sharia included. On the contrary, most who engage in the debate will spend quite some time professing to have enormous respect for Islam. But if they do respect Islam why will they not adhere to its political prescriptions?"

"Perhaps I misunderstand what politicians mean by "respect." Perhaps you can respect a religion whose basic tenets you think false and whose political ideology you believe to be despotic and sexist. Even so, you must admit that it is a little confusing, when rejecting Islamic theocracy, to focus on your respect for Islam rather than your belief that its basic ideas are false."

I would take a slight exception to Whyte's otherwise spot-on analysis. If somehow compelled to think, most American politicians would eventually come around to the position that Allah is actually the God of the Old and New Testaments. The problem with Islam is that God did not speak to a man named Mohammed. But, we are still left with Whyte's objections to "respecting" a belief system that we regard as wrong.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Could we calm down for a minute here? From what I understand, religious institutions in England and Canada actually are given the power to implement and enforce their own laws. The governments see it as a way to free up the courts in matters that concern religion, such as marriage and divorce.

All this clergyman seems to have been saying is that if Orthodox Jews, Christians and other religious institutions are granted these privileges, why not Muslims, too?

It's a tough issue because, yeah, the Sharia is a lot different than the Talmund and whatever laws Christian institutions implement. No, it shouldn't be even considered if it means having a thief's hand cut off and all the rest but if all they want is handling contracts and so on, sure.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Could we calm down for a minute here? From what I understand, religious institutions in England and Canada actually are given the power to implement and enforce their own laws. The governments see it as a way to free up the courts in matters that concern religion, such as marriage and divorce.

I would like to calm down and will reserve final judgement for myself when I am able to read the Archbishop's remarks. In the meantime bear in mind that under Sharia the following issues and sanctions attached thereto are considered somewhat extreme if not anachronistic by modern standards:

Religion

Blasphemy - punishable by prison including and up to death
Apostasy - punishable by incarceration and up to the death penalty
Forced Conversion - death to non-believers
Naming Teddy Bears Muhammad - prison and the lash (var of blasphemy?)

Family Law/Marriage-Divorce-

Adultery - punishable by death if comitted by the woman
Marriage without parental permission - punishable by death
Divorce - various depending on circumstance, usually in favor of the man
Dress code - violations punishable by various means including the lash and up to
and including death

All this clergyman seems to have been saying is that if Orthodox Jews, Christians and other religious institutions are granted these privileges, why not Muslims, too?

This is not any old clergyman. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wonder how his boss, the Queen, feels about his recommendations.

I am not familiar with any widespread Orthodox Jewish or Christian faiths that call
for corporal punishment up to and including death for the above infractions or violations
of either religious or family law, at least not in the UK or the U.S. So we need to understand what the sanctions or punishments under a British Sharia court would be for these sorts of violations.

It's a tough issue because, yeah, the Sharia is a lot different than the Talmund and whatever laws Christian institutions implement. No, it shouldn't be even considered if it means having a thief's hand cut off and all the rest but if all they want is handling contracts and so on, sure.

No doubt the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish and Christian bodies of law have also called for these barbaric responses hundreds if not thousands of years ago but not today.

The problem with Islam and the Sharia is that they have not embraced any modern standards and instead hold onto these ancient or historical responses.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

I don't see the point in it either. I wouldn't want either or them, but that's me. These people do want it, and if it's voluntary, what's the problem?

 

[portlandatheist]

I don't see the point in it either. I wouldn't want either or them, but that's me. These people do want it, and if it's voluntary, what's the problem?

Because Muslims, just like all other human beings, have rights. They shouldn't be beaten, imprisoned, or killed for offenses that wider society deems the punishment overly excessive and unacceptable. Should we allow the institution of slavery if it was "voluntary" or should we reject it outright as we do now?
Furthermore, it obscures the meaning of the law of the land and would create a very divisive atmosphere between pro Sharia law Muslims, anti Sharia law Muslims, and wider society. In short, it would create a lot of unnecessary conflict and tension.

 

[Darat]

I went to the BBC website of the story in the OP and found that I could NOT read his speech, only watch and listen to it. I would much rather do as you recommend and read it and have it in writing.

Do you happen to know a website where a written version might be placed? If I missed
a reference to a written version somewhere else I apologize.

Thanks

See: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575