Archbishop of Canterbury suggests Islamic Law in the UK...

[BridgeWalker]

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. 

   

[keeleon]

So then is that what the problem is?  Because if the resolutions that the muslims want is just monetary, then yes there is already a system in place to enforce that.  But since the sharia law (just guessing here) probably calls for "behandings", stonings and hangings, I don't see why the legal system should encorporate it.  I guess I just don't understand what the muslims want to do but can't already do, can smeone enlighten me?

[Manedwolf]

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.

[keeleon]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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!

[De Selby]

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.

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."

[De Selby]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

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!

[keeleon]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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. 

[De Selby]

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.

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.

[BridgeWalker]

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. 

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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.

 

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

[keeleon]

I was going to ask how the Jewish laws specifically made one type of person lower than the rest, in defense of why one might be accepted and the other not.  But since apparently shootinstudent is Muslim, I am going to have to just shut my mouth, since obviously he knows alot more about that culture than I do.

[De Selby]

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.

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. 

[Sergeant Bob]

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?

[BridgeWalker]

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.

[keeleon]

So, then it only one man being able to have multiple wives that is the issue?  Because that was what was mentioned specifically earlier.  And as I stated, if your culture allows you to have multiple wives, then by all means go ahead and do it, there is  nothing illegal about having 3 women living in your house and sleeping in your bed (as far as I know).  I just know that if I wanted multiple wives in the US, the only thing that I wouldn't get is a tax break.  Boo-hoo.  If it is a loving situation as opposed to a forced mariage (hmm, something about women being repressed) then you can just legally marry one of the women, that way she gets all of your stuff when you die, and trust her to share your stuff with the others.  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?

[De Selby]

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[De Selby]

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.

[De Selby]

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?

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. 

[BridgeWalker]

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.

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: 

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:

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.

[De Selby]

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). 

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?