Sharia Law in the UK?

[Lucio]

To be slightly more cynical, this is simply a ploy by a religious man at the head of a rapidly disintergrating faith to see either a) more tolerant or b) stir up his followers to become even more anti-muslim.

I cannot see the government ever contimplating bringing this into law, as to whether or not it's a good idea, I'm not convinced of the benefits. Enpowering a minority to carry on their way of life has done little to ensure a cohesive whole, it's far better to let things come to a natural balance point, we give up some of our more extreme and offensive views, they do the same and we all balance each other out.

[nichomach]

Rowan's always BEEN tolerant, and the last thing he'd want is to stir up anti-Muslim feeling - and the Anglican Communion isn't "anti-Muslim" anyway. OK, you're not convinced that it's a good idea, but that doesn't mean Williams should be vilified for bringing the issue into the open. And frankly most of the attacks on him for it have simply been kneejerk bull****.

edit: I haven't made up my own mind yet about whether this is a good idea or not; I'm certainly convinced that having the discussion isn't a bad thing, and insofar as the leader of my faith is advocating tolerance and understanding of other faiths and exploring whether there are better ways for people of all or no faith to coexist, then I'm proud of him for doing it.

[Blitzen]

I'd note that you appear unable or unwilling to respond on point; be that as it may:

There's no actual citation for the percentages that that Shaista Gohir cites; further she herself notes that interpretation varies widely throughout the world. Consequently, one could arrive at a British formulation of it. Further, use of the mechanism would be by mutual consent only. As far as the role of women is concerned that could also be part of the formulation of any formalised recognition.

I am not, it should be noted, saying that we should have Sharia courts, or attempting to mandate what those should be. However Williams is at least willing to discuss the engagement between faiths and between faith and the law without frothing at the mouth. Personally I think that's laudable.

edit: Blitzen, FFS, read what the guy actually said. This will never affect you or your precious children or how you live; it would only ever affect Muslims, and even then only those who choose this method of dispute resolution which would itself remain subject to British law. Ye gods and little fishes, it doesn't take much to get people frothing at the mouth over what they imagine people might have said, does it?

Firstly...anyone who thinks whatever Dr. Rowan says is 'laudable' needs to wake up. This guy only ever comments on things that have nothing to do with Christianity. Strange for an Arch Bishop dont you think?

As far as i am concerned, once we give a little, more and more will be taken.

Anyone only has to look how things have progressed in favour of Islam in this country in the last 10 years even to see that once the floodgates open, more and more is demnded of us.

I can read perfectly well. Its what is between the lines that really counts i think.

This story may have touched a nerve for me as i NEVER want to be in a country that has another law other than the one of this land and NOT someone elses.

As for your 'my precious children' comment! Damn right they are precious. They are so precious i dont want them to grow up and be unsure as to what on earth is going on in their country as that is the way it is heading. They are also more 'precious' than keeping these people happy at the expense of many other things.

You create your sentences like a well educated person. Shame you let yourself down by damning any comment that doesnt agree with yours.
Let me think?????? What does that remind me of?

This is only the beginning.

edit: I haven't made up my own mind yet about whether this is a good idea or not; I'm certainly convinced that having the discussion isn't a bad thing, and insofar as the leader of my faith is advocating tolerance and understanding of other faiths and exploring whether there are better ways for people of all or no faith to coexist, then I'm proud of him for doing it.

Advocating tolerance is a good thing...i agree with you.
Suggesting that a foreign culture to our own should be able to dictate their own matters (how ever big or small that scope is) within our country is totally another and surely you can see how wrong that is.

[nichomach]

Firstly...anyone who thinks whatever Dr. Rowan says is 'laudable' needs to wake up. This guy only ever comments on things that have nothing to do with Christianity. Strange for an Arch Bishop dont you think?...

Bull****. He comments on Christian matters every day. You just don't read the comments. Try subscribing to ACNS. As far as reading between the lines is concerned, all you're doing is ignoring what he actually said (because that doesn't give you an excuse to get worked up) and saying "Aaaaahhh....but what he really meant was..." and substituting whatever you do want to get worked up about.

BTW, if your definition of flaming is pointing out that what you've said is palpably, demonstrably untrue, then fine; we'll agree to differ. I'll tell the truth, and you can just make random stuff up to get worked up about. Fair enough?

There is also no question of anyone "dictating" anything as would be utterly apparent to anyone who actually read the transcript or was aware of exactly the same provisions made for other faiths in the UK already.

[[GSV]Trig]

Your stated position says otherwise.

Really, religion IMHO is the main reason for wars.
LAW and what is right and wrong has nothing to do with religion.

Therefor the two shouldnt mix, what part of that are you failing to grasp?

[nichomach]

Really, religion IMHO is the main reason for wars.
LAW and what is right and wrong has nothing to do with religion.
Therefor the two shouldnt mix, what part of that are you failing to grasp?

I'm not failing to grasp any of that. Your view is antireligious and you do not see any need to tolerate or accommodate those who disagree. I think that's pretty clear. Therefore the claim to be "tolerant" rings somewhat hollow. What part of that do you fail to grasp?
A religious point of view is that faith is intimately involved with matters of morality, and by extension, law, to a greater or lesser extent.

[Blitzen]

Really, religion IMHO is the main reason for wars.
LAW and what is right and wrong has nothing to do with religion.

Therefor the two shouldnt mix, what part of that are you failing to grasp?

Absolutely agree

I'm not failing to grasp any of that. Your view is antireligious and you do not see any need to tolerate or accommodate those who disagree. I think that's pretty clear. Therefore the claim to be "tolerant" rings somewhat hollow. What part of that do you fail to grasp?
A religious point of view is that faith is intimately involved with matters of morality, and by extension, law, to a greater or lesser extent.

Religion is opinion and not based on fact so how can a judicial system be streamlined with it.

You seem to think and construct your posts as though everyone is wrong and your opinion is completely correct and the only way forward. How wrong you are!
BTW.....Making certain words bold doesnt make you points anymore valid. It just shows you are getting worked up.

[nichomach]

A judicial system is ALSO based upon opinion; the opinion being an assessment of how one should respond to a set of facts. The very nature of a judicial system is that it is based upon an opinion of what is just. Try reading about jurisprudence - Definitions from Dictionary.com, the philosophy of law.

As to using bold, is it my fault if Ctrl+B isn't in your skillset? It's called emphasis. Oh, and commenting upon my supposed "getting worked up" after your little "ZOMG!!! IT R TEH CIVIL W4R!!!!" frothy fit above is a little rich, don't you think?

[Blitzen]

A judicial system is ALSO based upon opinion; the opinion being an assessment of how one should respond to a set of facts. The very nature of a judicial system is that it is based upon an opinion of what is just. Try reading about , the philosophy of law.

As to using bold, is it my fault if Ctrl+B isn't in your skillset? It's called emphasis. Oh, and commenting upon my supposed "getting worked up" after your little "ZOMG!!! IT R TEH CIVIL W4R!!!!" frothy fit above is a little rich, don't you think?

I dont remember posting that 'TEH' stuff??? And what on earth is 'ZOMG'? I dont know any teenagers so please enlighten me on it as you seem to be able to make whole sentences from it. Is it a special language for you?

So worked up he/she/it resorts to harsh words. My skillset, even though high enough to get you throwing your dolly out of your pram, is of no concern to you (and every bit as high as yours).

Your flaming is just is as tiresome as your one dimensional opinion. and i dont care if your dad is bigger than my dad!

I will just read rather than retort now i think as you are such a desperately boring individual.

[nichomach]

gibberish

/killfile

[[GSV]Trig]

I'm not failing to grasp any of that. Your view is antireligious and you do not see any need to tolerate or accommodate those who disagree. I think that's pretty clear. Therefore the claim to be "tolerant" rings somewhat hollow. What part of that do you fail to grasp?
A religious point of view is that faith is intimately involved with matters of morality, and by extension, law, to a greater or lesser extent.

You again seem to be completely missing my point..
My religious POV has nothing to do with my original statement.
Religion is based on what may or may not of happened thousands of years ago and what originally happened and what was written then and what is written now is open to a rather broad interpretation and has no doubt been twisted to suit, as happens with all religions...

Law, while open to interpretation isnt the same as religion.

People can choose what religion they wish to follow, the same shouldnt be allowed for the law, it would be open for people to commit a crime and then say they follow xyz religion and use a legal loophole to get away with it.


Religion is about freedom of expression etc.
Law is about right and wrong.
Hence the two shouldnt mix.

That was my original point, the point that you seem to keep missing and started on your "Your not tollerant and are anti religion etc etc" rant..

Can I possibly make it any clearer?

[Agent]

IMO State and law should always be separate. Granted that some of the values may originate from a certain religion, but the religion as a whole should not be used to decided on the outcomes in court.

If I was in court I would not want my outcome decided by the bible or any other religious texts- which revision would they use for a start, and what interpretation would the reader have of the words in it? At least in current law they are written in a way to try and minimise this.

I'm firmly in the camp of 'one rule for all'. What's to say that one religion may have more favourable terms of the other in a court? - I could then simply claim that I believe in that religion to try and minimise any sentence. After all, who is a judge to question my beliefs?

If this was any other segregation of people other than religious based, it wouldn't even be mentioned (Could you imagine having different laws based on skin colour for example?). Yet because its religion, again, some people feel the immediate need to offer it additional rights / protection. Regardless of religion, that's wrong IMO.

[staffsMike]

Where do you actually stand on Sharia Law Nichomach? You know some of it is really quite unpleasent right?

It was suggested that Sharia Law be implemented to govern marital disputes. So what is the correct punishment under sharia law for a man who commits adultery?

I'm not suggesting that they would actually allow the punishments under sharia law but then..why have it at all?

[nichomach]

You again seem to be completely missing my point..
My religious POV has nothing to do with my original statement.

Yes, it does as your following comments make clear.

Religion is based on what may or may not of happened thousands of years ago and what originally happened and what was written then and what is written now is open to a rather broad interpretation and has no doubt been twisted to suit, as happens with all religions...

No, it is based upon faith. In the case of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) upon faith in a living and eternal God. Scripture is open to interpretation, true enough. That said, for people of faith, that faith is intrinsic to their morality.

Law, while open to interpretation isnt the same as religion.

Again a truism; law, howver, doesn't exist in a vacuum. We didn't suddenly wake up one day and decide "we'll have this thing called law". It is a codification in large part of a set of shared moral values. We draw from morality and ethics to make law; people of faith draw from that faith to determine their morality.

People can choose what religion they wish to follow,

Agreed.

the same shouldnt be allowed for the law, it would be open for people to commit a crime and then say they follow xyz religion and use a legal loophole to get away with it.

And again this is precisely not what Williams is talking about, and nor should anyone else be. The proposal is that for civil matters between mutually consenting parties and under the overarching principles and oversight of British law, people should be allowed to make agreements or resolve disputes according to their faith. This is already done for Jews and Roman Catholics and they remain subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Religion is about freedom of expression etc.
Law is about right and wrong.
Hence the two shouldnt mix.

No, you are wrong. Religion is (or should be) about faith. People of faith derive, in whole or in part, their morality, their definition of right and wrong, from that faith. Law is drawn from morality and ethics; the definition of right and wrong. Therefore, for a person of faith, they are inextricably involved.
That is what you are specifically excluding and that is why this:

That was my original point, the point that you seem to keep missing and started on your "Your not tollerant and are anti religion etc etc" rant..

...is fundamentally mistaken.
You don't believe that faith has anything to do with right or wrong, or that it should have anything to do with the legal system that is drawn from what we define as right and wrong. The view of a person of faith is different, and it is that difference that you are unwilling to tolerate or accommodate.

Can I possibly make it any clearer?

You've made your view very clear; that your view is secular and that you do not believe that there should be any tolerance of or accommodation of those whose view is different.

[nichomach]

IMO State and law sho...

The proposal is for some civil matters between mutually consenting parties to be resolved according to Sharia law. That is all.

[nichomach]

Where do you actually stand on Sharia Law Nichomach? You know some of it is really quite unpleasent right?

Some implementations of Sharia law are unpleasant, certainly; as are quite a few examples of secular law. As I said above, I'm undecided, but a lot of what is being spouted in the great moral panic in this thread is just eyewash.

It was suggested that Sharia Law be implemented to govern marital disputes. So what is the correct punishment under sharia law for a man who commits adultery?

Under the proposed system, none, since it is proposed for civil matters and not criminal ones, and there is no suggestion that "punishments" of the sort that have been supposed here could occur.

I'm not suggesting that they would actually allow the punishments under sharia law but then..why have it at all?

Because Sharia isn't about punishments in the same way that the whole of our secular laws aren't. It's about how contracts are made, how financial services should be provided, whether marriages are lawful or not, matters of welfare, etc. I'd also note that Sharia isn't in itself an absolute set of laws, more a method of determining laws should be; hence a British formulation could be arrived at that would be utterly consistent with secular laws - which Islam obliges its followers to observe anyway.