Sharia Law in the UK?

[iranu]

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

No, I was merely referencing someone who shares an opinion, who is more likely to understand the debate and it's consequences.

There's no actual citation for the percentages that that Shaista Gohir cites;

No she doesn't but I have no reason to doubt her. Secondly 5 seconds worth of googling gives

40% of young UK Muslims want sharia law

There is a Telegraph Poll (lol great pun) by ICM that shows this but the link won't show up in Hexus for some reason. So here's the source

What is also worrying is the attitudes of muslims in Britain, this time from a Guardian poll

ICM Research - Search - sorry hexus is not showing the links so here are the two together.

Note the three questions about free speech and religious hatred law. It's completely contradictory and show that these people have a long way to come. See below, end paragraph for how I see it.

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.

And this is central to my point. I have seen the knee jerk over reaction (which doesn't surprise me because people are fed up with constant chipping away at their indigenous culture) but I'm trying to be reasonable and show why it's not a good idea at the moment. Principally it is going to be very hard almost impossible to get national agreement and consistency of judgement throughout the country whilst there remains large cultural differences between muslims. Only when muslims are integrated and see themselves as British muslims (note the order of those two words) rather than muslims from Britain, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Sudan etc etc will you get consensus. That consensus must also not conflict with the rights of women in British and European law. I have referenced incidents (and there are many more) that show that women are treated as second class citizens amongst a large proportion of muslims due to their cultural backgrounds. Note I'm not specifically saying that islam is the problem but the cultural interpretation of it is with regard to sharia law.

I am not, it should be noted, saying that we should have Sharia courts, or attempting to mandate what those should be.

Well I can't agree that you are, on the one hand you say that sikhs and Jews have courts and we haven't been overtaken by them so by extrapolation you would argue the same for muslims.(?) When you say we could arrive at a British version then surely that is some kind of mandate, what that mandate would be is what's up for discussion and how it would fit in with our laws without compromising existing legislation such as human rights.

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.

The problem with Williams is he's a lefty bearded rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish, part of the useful idiot brigade. He's far too controversial to be bringing these sorts of things up especially when he says things like

the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

without saying how wrong it is. Equality in the eyes of the law is one of the greatest achievements this country has made. Any watering down, such as politicians not being subject to the Freedom of Information Act etc, produces inequality and we don't want to go down that route.

I liken this issue to a group of 16 year old school children who want an end of term party. This is fine as long as they can prove throughout the school year that they are mature enough to have one and show good behaviour in order to be rewarded with the privilege. Currently we have too many naughty boys and girls and it's upto the moderate majority to put pressure on those that wish to spoil the party for everyone else. Once they can show that they have a collective mature responsibility, just like the sikhs and Jews have done then we can give them the privilege because they will have earned it. At the moment they don't deserve it imho.

[nichomach]

I'd note then that I also referenced people from the same source with rather differing views .

You make some good points, iranu; and as I say I'm not wedded to the idea personally. Your personal comments on Williams are very far off the mark, though; he's an extremely intelligent and thoughtful man and someone who's very well aware that he's likely to incur precisely the sort of misunderstanding and frothing at the mouth that we can see here. I think, however, that he's entirely correct to not sweep issues like this under the carpet and to bring them out into the open. Have you actually read the transcript?


Your points regarding cultural interpretation are also noted. As far as my noting specific examples of other faiths with similar arrangements (not Sikhs and Jews in my examples, but RC and Jews), that's merely to make two points; firstly, that this sort of arrangement doesn't automatically bring the legal system to its knees and that as a matter of justice if we do it for them we should at least consider doing it for Muslims.

I don't actually think that the proposal waters down equality before the law at all, in the same way that it doesn't for the aforementioned groups or for the parties to construction contracts.

As to the differences between ethnic extractions of those who might use the system, you're right in that people would have to see themselves as sharing certain values, but then we as broader members of society do that every day. You and I disagree on a lot, but we agree that murder is wrong, that if you make an agreement you should abide by it and so forth; we have a basic underlying set of shared values. I rather think that Muslims would also discover such a set, and indeed that might actually help in their defining themselves as British Muslims - they might argue and bicker about things, but still adhere to that basic set.

The fact that basic rights in British and European law cannot be endangered by this is of course the sine qua non.

[Agent]

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

Yes, but I fail to see how it either either civil or criminal should change the way the law is applied to anyone.

Where do you draw the line too? What constitutes as a religion? Would Scientology be included in this (which has some seriously scary reading in it) if they were to demand the same rights?
At what point could I ask for "my" requirements to be governed by "my" law should I decide to believe in a non mainstream (or even make my own, if you want to take it to extremes) religion?

[nichomach]

Yes, but I fail to see how it either either civil or criminal should change the way the law is applied to anyone.

If both parties agree to abide by agreements formulated according to the precepts of their faith, and which affect no-one else, why shouldn't they?

Where do you draw the line too? What constitutes as a religion? Would Scientology be included in this (which has some seriously scary reading in it) if they were to demand the same rights?

I guess they could. I don't like them much either, but again, the arrangements could only affect their relations with each other, and again, only by mutual consent.

At what point could I ask for "my" requirements to be governed by "my" law should I decide to believe in a non mainstream (or even make my own, if you want to take it to extremes) religion?

The point at which you can get the other party in the agreement or dispute to convert to your faith, I guess . Although you would have to have your faith recognised by the state so that your court could be too, and I'd guess you'd have to have enough converts to form a court in the first place... I dunno; do you feel particularly messianic today?

[Agent]

If both parties agree to abide by agreements formulated according to the precepts of their faith, and which affect no-one else, why shouldn't they?

I guess they could. I don't like them much either, but again, the arrangements could only affect their relations with each other, and again, only by mutual consent.

The point at which you can get the other party in the agreement or dispute to convert to your faith, I guess . Although you would have to have your faith recognised by the state so that your court could be too, and I'd guess you'd have to have enough converts to form a court in the first place... I dunno; do you feel particularly messianic today?

So, if they were to mutually consent to a fight to the death, it would be an acceptable way to settle the issue at hand?
What happens when their mutual consent to a problem contradicts what's allowed by current law? Acceptable or not?

Messianic ? Not at all I just can not see how this can be applied to the current law system in a way which doesn't make a farce of it

[pp05]

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?

Was invasion into iraq a religious war? Saddam was a secular leader. Was US/Uk invasion about christianity? or was it like most now see - about oil and looting a country of it's wealth.

Most wars are about Land and wealth that can be extracted from that land by whatever means available. Easy to bring up religious sentiment [as it can act as common bond] when a people have greviences going back many years[hundreds]. Every war in last 200 years has been secular so your statement is untrue. War is horrible. But lets get back on topic.

As Nich has pointed out it won't effect majority of people including those who are muslims[for whom it's trying to accomodate] if they don't wish to go through it. They too i expect will have to understand it better. They will have to agree to use it and only then. People keep going on about stones and sticks, it's clear from article it is only about divorce and certain financial matters which can be accomodated and will work within[under] english law.

Overall a good discussion with variety of views.

[nichomach]

@Agent:

No it would not, since that would offend against Criminal law, would be contrary to the ECHR even if it were not...
If their proposed resolution contravenes the general law then it would be illegal. And would remain illegal.
Look, let's see if I can illustrate how this works. I make a contract with somebody to build an office block. This is governed by general contract law. Within that contract, we stipulate that any disagreements must be resolved by going to Messrs Johnson & Johnson, the professional arbitrators, and damages cannot exceed £10m (this last being a sort of "private law" that we have agreed). This is a term of the contract, and has the force of law, and the arbitrators' decision is binding. We have a falling out and I say "we're going to J&J". They say "no we're not! And we want £20m!". OK, at THAT point we fall back to contract law, we go before the courts and it all gets messy. Businesses frequently have very good reasons to create and abide by such arrangements, even if a decision goes against them, because the resolution is swift and allows business to go on. If you refuse to abide by what you've agreed, you get a bad rep and people will refuse to deal with you. It is, if you will, a kind of "private law", and one which operates by consent, but one which if it all goes pear-shaped has the more general law underpinning it, and only exists subordinate to that more general law. In this situation, Muslims would also have their own reasons for abiding by these agreements, they'd just be reasons of faith, not commerce. Does that help at all?

[Agent]

Was invasion into iraq a religious war? Saddam was a secular leader. Was US/Uk invasion about christianity? or was it like most now see - about oil and looting a country of it's wealth.

Well the main nutcase behind it believed that god told him to. How much weight this had on his decision, I guess we'll never know, but its perfectly possible that it played a large part in it.

Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq

I don't disagree with what you've said, but even disputes over land often have some ties back to religion. Would the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be here if they all had the same beliefs? If it was, I suspect it would be on a much smaller scale.
Two differing sides with the same religion rarely have the same amount of violence as if they were different.

[nichomach]

Two differing sides with the same religion rarely have the same amount of violence as if they were different.

You freakin' WHAT??? Have you ever heard of the Iran/Iraq war? That involved massive casualties. Last I checked, the European powers in WWI were by and large Christian, and they managed a fair degree of murderous efficiency too. Seriously, that's simply not true.

[staffsMike]

WWI was caused by german royalty have a trouser snake issue when comparing thier navy to our own among other things lol.. nothing to do with religion

They were largely christian countries.. but that doesn't make it a religious war.

[usxhe190]

Well the main nutcase behind it believed that god told him to. How much weight this had on his decision, I guess we'll never know, but its perfectly possible that it played a large part in it.

Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq

I don't disagree with what you've said, but even disputes over land often have some ties back to religion. Would the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be here if they all had the same beliefs? If it was, I suspect it would be on a much smaller scale.
Two differing sides with the same religion rarely have the same amount of violence as if they were different.

hope it wasn't the devil talking to him

anyways, BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush God comments 'not literal' - this is from the same dude I believe - and even if he is wrong.

[usxhe190]

WWI was caused by german royalty have a trouser snake issue when comparing thier navy to our own among other things lol.. nothing to do with religion

They were largely christian countries.. but that doesn't make it a religious war.

Seems causes of WWI was pretty complex...but seems (correct me if I am wrong) to do with land (or if viewed on the other side "unity" of countries), someone getting assassinated, and then people being pissed off about it...

Edit - For WWII, seems like Hitler wanted to more land to expand his empire.

But I guess religion might have been the "cause" and/or might have been the "tool" to get Germans involved.

[nichomach]

WWI was caused by german royalty have a trouser snake issue when comparing thier navy to our own among other things lol.. nothing to do with religion
They were largely christian countries.. but that doesn't make it a religious war.

And the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't a religious war either; it's about land which the Israelis say they own and which the Palestinians say they stole. My point was precisely that religion seems to be neither a mitigating nor exacerbating factor when it comes to the body count .

[staffsMike]

Seems causes of WWI was pretty complex...but seems (correct me if I am wrong) to do with land (or if viewed on the other side "unity" of countries), someone getting assassinated, and then people being pissed off about it...

IIRC it was finally kicked off by the navy thing as a said before there were a lot of things leading up to it though including the assisnation.

The german King/ Kaiser (I think) at the time had been in England not long before and was jealous of the our Navy and wanted to show us who was boss. Only if I remeber correctly though lol

[staffsMike]

And the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn't a religious war either; it's about land which the Israelis say they own and which the Palestinians say they stole. My point was precisely that religion seems to be neither a mitigating nor exacerbating factor when it comes to the body count .

Depends how you consider stole? Squatters rights and all that

Honestly don't know the facts about this one. Something to do with the Palestinians leaving for a while and the Israeli's took the land then the palestinians came back, rather annoyed that their land had been taken? lol

[usxhe190]

interesting reading actually:

Religious war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually to me, it seems like the very end end point, it's someone who wants a lot of stuff or fear of losing alot of stuff...

seems like this is the case for any potential wars in the future:
e.g.
iran/us
korea/us
taiwn/china
tibet/china
etc