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

[cordex]

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.

[Bigjake]

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

[Sergeant Bob]

After further review (as in actually reading the story) I really don't have a problem with it. If private parties wish to settle their civil differences in their own way, then good. It's no different than two neighbors settling a property line dispute among themselves.

The government doesn't need to have its hands in everything.

[HankB]

"Voluntary" . . . until some Moslems, having been corrupted by Western ideas of fairness, democracy, the rule of law, due process, and human rights, decide they don't want to be part of the sharia "arbitration" process . . . we'll see how "voluntary" it really is; theory and practice when Islam and government merge are very different. (And don't bother comparing this to the Inquisition - that's been over for centuries.)

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.

[The Viking]

They come here, they obey the same damn laws as I do. No sharia, no nothing except the laws of the land. If they can't abide by this simple thing, then get the f*** out, right now.

[Iain]

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.

[Manedwolf]

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.

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.

[The Viking]

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.

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.

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 )

[Boomhauer]

And there was one of those killings here, too.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

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.

[wooderson]

The claim is that anyone who interprets his statement as enacting Sharia in Britain is an over-reaction. Iain hasn't said anything about people who disagree with the idea - only those who are mis-stating what is actually being proffered by the Archbishop.

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?

[roo_ster]

Given:  The Archbishop of Canterbury is a fool.

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

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

[Iain]

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.

[CAnnoneer]

I am thinking, isn't it great that Britain is an island? When the islamists take over, all we need to do is mine the ports. 

[De Selby]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

[De Selby]

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?

[De Selby]

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.

[De Selby]

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.

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.

[Manedwolf]

Big deal-there are yearly demonstrations in tel aviv with signs that say "burn all the gays and blacks" held by Orthodox extremists.

BULLSH__.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Tecumseh]

He does realize that, under Sharia law,he's a dead man. Right?......

  You have no understanding of Sharia law, do you?

[Tecumseh]

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.)

  How is any different than these Christians?  They believe in destruction of America?  I guess we should start bashing Christianity?

[Manedwolf]

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.