Sharia Law in the UK?

[usxhe190]

Curiously, I wonder if all Atheists bounded together and asked for some changes to apply to them what would be the response?

your assumption is atheists don't band together but ironically - i think it has already been done here for this discussion..no?- just an observation anyway

and actually wasn't the muslims banding together to get this - was a non-Muslim.

[Wh@l3fish]

Agent, I think your being cynical

Honestly though, I think you can only get sentenced in a criminal court, with a jury present. The proposals set out by Dr Rowan would only extend to civil matters, so the situation you've laid out should never arise. Civil matters are usually disagreements between two interested parties, and a judge would decide whose case has the most merits. Sharia law would only apply of both parties agreed to it, and I guess the outcomes would be binding. If one party didn't agree, then the current system would apply. In either case, I would imagine that British law would be supreme any way

[Blitzen]

/killfile

Thats a true response from someone that sees nothing apart from their PC screen.

I also see your true self in the rest of your posts.

AGENT sees things differently to you but i see you inflict your opinions in a rather different way.

I wonder why?????

And BTW...ALL of your posts are directly taken from the BBC News website.

[iranu]

As far as the comments being unwelcome, that's not been the position of the MCB or the Sharia Council.

Well they wouldn't would they! The MCB are often quoted in the press and have their representatives on TV as if they speak for the majority of muslims. The simple fact of the matter is they don't. I and many muslims consider the MCB to be fairly conservative with regard to islam. I won't use extremist although they do wind me up now and again and if they were anything to go by I'd be worried.

I think we keep going off on a tangent though when we start talking about Sharia law being incorporated into British law; it wouldn't be, in the same way that we don't incorporate Jewish or Roman Catholic law. We'd merely be recognising agreements settled under that law.

Yes, sorry that's me using the words "incorporated into" when I should say "recognised by". I'm not sure of the correct legalese!

As far as judgement is concerned, I think the point at which we're in danger of stereotyping everything to do with Islam as associated with terror, and when we visibly have a growing number of disaffected young Muslims is precisely the time at which relations between British Muslims and the rest of society are already to the fore and precisely the time when I expect the leaders of my own faith to be stepping up and recognising the problems as well as not being afraid to look into any possible solutions. I'd expect that of Rowan and of people like Michael Nazir Ali.

I can see your point. I think we've already reached the stereotyping point and I'm not surprised. Unlimited immigration and multiculturalism has failed and the debate is long overdue. These are exactly the issues that "us nasty, bigoted, little Englander,Tory, racist, xenophobic, b*st*rds" have been talking about for a long time, but we've all been shouted down. I would have preferred the debate to have been reasonable before it got to this stage. The problem now comes with the more extreme islamic organisations pushing this and coming to the fore. I bet we'll see the likes of Jack Straw and others with large muslim sections talking this up at the next election even though the poll I linked to shows 60% of muslims don't want sharia law (and presumably the civic/civil parts too). And that's the problem nowadays; those that shout loudest often get their way.

You should NOT however make the mistake of assuming that all, or even a majority, of arranged marriages are forced. My wife has Muslim women students who've actually asked their families to arrange marriages; they actually reckon it's easier and better.

No I don't make the assumption that all are forced although my wording doesn't make that clear. I think faster than I can type! I still don't like the idea of arranged marriages because I think it puts people into a possibly vulnerable position. I suppose that as long as there is consent then it's ok but there are far too many horror stories and the Sharia Council is inundated with divorce proceedings from muslim women.

I work with a muslim chap who is of Pakistani origin, he's been in this country for 20+ years, he's a well respected elder and we often I want to find something out so ask him. He's a very mild mannered bloke, almost liberal really, with a live and let live attitude although he is very devout towards his faith. I wasn't in the office today, but I know exactly what his reaction to all this will be. We never do the god debate thing, but he knows I'm an atheist.

[Agent]

BUT they were members of the same faith, and the war was about resources and land.

No, I'm not. WWII wasn't about religion either. Nor was Vietnam. Nor the Franco-Prussian War. Nor the Austro-Hungarian War. Nor the Napoleonic War. Nor the Boer War. Nor the Zulu War. Sorry, but the vast, overwhelming majority of wars in the past several hundred years have been about land or resources, sometimes secular politics, but not religion.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. Were the direct causes in those conflicts because of religion directly? Probably no. But again, I'll quote what I said:

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

How many of the quoted examples you have given shared the same religion?
World war 2 certainly didn't [Catholics Christianity, Jews for a start), nor Vietnam, As far as I know the Franco-Prussian War also didn't share a common belief at the time (although feel free to correct that). I don't know enough about the others to comment, nor do I have time to go Googling this second

The war issue is taking things very far O/T and has been done to death in other threads. If you really want to open it up again, maybe another thread would be a good idea, but I honestly won't be joining you there since I'm frankly sick of the sight of the subject.

Each to their own, but I agree its going O/T. I'm sure we can agree to disagree on any remaining things (Although if you do want to answer what I said above feel free to PM me - I'd actually be interested to know )

[shadowmaster]

Exactly; respect peoples' beliefs within our basic framework of rights and liberties.

Agree my thoughts exactly

Family of teen Muslim invited men to rape her - Times Online

Absolutely shocking. I don’t know how the Islamic Sharia Council approved this marriage but according to sharia law that is not allowed. You cannot force a women into marriage. I'm curious were the council aware of the full story behind this girls marriage before they approved it?

[Agent]

your assumption is atheists don't band together but ironically - i think it has already been done here for this discussion..no?- just an observation anyway

and actually wasn't the muslims banding together to get this - was a non-Muslim.

I never said Muslims did band together with regards to this

The point was - There is no other group of people that I know of that are allowed a separate set of laws in this country. I don't see why this should be changed due to any religion.

The number of Atheists is growing (fairly rapidly I believe), so should this group of people be allowed separate laws if they wanted (if agreed mutually of course), or is it purely because its 'god' again that we are supposed to allow special allowances for these people?

[nichomach]

Call me cynical here (and I'm sure someone will ), but I wouldn't trust anyone purely based on faith of their agreement.
If I was in trouble before a court and I had the choice between one sentence, and another more lenient one because of my 'beliefs', I know I'd be pleading for the more lenient court to pass sentence.

But you wouldn't have that option, because in no case under any system that could possibly be said to be envisaged by Williams' speech would there be any question of "passing sentence" since that is a function of criminal, not civil law.

[nichomach]

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. Were the direct causes in those conflicts because of religion directly? Probably no. But again, I'll quote what I said:
How many of the quoted examples you have given shared the same religion?

MOST.

World war 2 certainly didn't [Catholics Christianity, Jews for a start),

What, everyone who opposed the Germans was Jewish? Don't be ridiculous. Britain wasn't, France wasn't, Poland wasn't, the US wasn't, Russia wasn't (although the USSR institutionalized atheism), hell, none of Europe. WWII was started by Germany's territorial ambitions; religion had nothing to do with it, although the war became a convenient cover for undertaking the Final Solution (google Wannsee Conference, where the Endlösung was proposed - which didn't occur until the War was well and truly underway). Most of the allied countries were also at least nominally Christian.

nor Vietnam,

Which again was not a religious war, but a war about territory and opposing secular political systems, and not religious.

As far as I know the Franco-Prussian War also didn't share a common belief at the time (although feel free to correct that).

France and Prussia, both Christian. Next.

I don't know enough about the others to comment, nor do I have time to go Googling this second

Napoleonic War? European christian countries. Boer War? Christian Afrikaaners versus Christian Brits. Zulu War? Started by British demand for secular sovereignty over Zulus and dismantlement of their army.

Each to their own, but I agree its going O/T. I'm sure we can agree to disagree on any remaining things (Although if you do want to answer what I said above feel free to PM me - I'd actually be interested to know )

Well, now you do.
Agree on move to PM for anything further.

[usxhe190]

I never said Muslims did band together with regards to this

The point was - There is no other group of people that I know of that are allowed a separate set of laws in this country. I don't see why this should be changed due to any religion.

The number of Atheists is growing (fairly rapidly I believe), so should this group of people be allowed separate laws if they wanted (if agreed mutually of course), or is it purely because its 'god' again that we are supposed to allow special allowances for these people?

depends on what you mean by separate set of laws - correct me if i am wrong but i thought what he was saying was for the UK courts to recognise a mutual civil Sharia compliant agreement ?

if you mean like this, it happens a lot in "non-emotive" issues like arbitration between two parties on a technical dispute (e.g. construction) which does not involve the courts but parties are bind by the "arbitrator".

[nichomach]

depends on ...(e.g. construction) which does not involve the courts but parties are bind by the "arbitrator".

Exactly the example I used above.

[Agent]

But you wouldn't have that option, because in no case under any system that could possibly be said to be envisaged by Williams' speech would there be any question of "passing sentence" since that is a function of criminal, not civil law.

Yeah, bad wording - but does the court still not decide the outcome of the dispute?

[JPreston]

This is the problem we get when people let their imaginary friends dictate more to them than what style of hat they should wear when riding a motorbike, or whether they are allowed to have a barbeque on a Saturday.

The thing about the law is, it compels everyone to follow it whether they agree with it or not. Therefore it needs to be defensible, i.e. based on something more fair and rational than bronze age mythology.

Who cares about arbitration? People can already settle for the outcome that they think is the fairest possible, or alternatively the most pleasing to their invisible sky-wizard masters. As long as they are both of sound mind - so that the party surrendering whatever right they have under UK law that they do not have under whatever religious framework they choose to operate within instead - let them call it whatever they want.

The critical thing is that full recourse to the actual law be available to everyone equally at all times - go along with whatever kangaroo court you want to, but it must be 100% voluntary for everyone involved at all times. If you want to give up your legal rights because you seriously think you will be eternally rewarded after you die, you're an idiot, but it's a free country.

The problem with Williams is he's a lefty bearded rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish.

Hoy! Refer to his views on all other issues, he's most definitely one of yours on the right.

And he looks like a tramp

[nichomach]

Yeah, bad wording - but does the court still not decide the outcome of the dispute?

Assuming both parties consent; if consent breaks down, then the process falls back to UK law.

[iranu]

This is the problem we get when people let their imaginary friends dictate more to them than what style of hat they should wear when riding a motorbike, or whether they are allowed to have a barbeque on a Saturday.

The thing about the law is, it compels everyone to follow it whether they agree with it or not. Therefore it needs to be defensible, i.e. based on something more fair and rational than bronze age mythology.

Who cares about arbitration? People can already settle for the outcome that they think is the fairest possible, or alternatively the most pleasing to their invisible sky-wizard masters. As long as they are both of sound mind - so that the party surrendering whatever right they have under UK law that they do not have under whatever religious framework they choose to operate within instead - let them call it whatever they want.

The critical thing is that full recourse to the actual law be available to everyone equally at all times - go along with whatever kangaroo court you want to, but it must be 100% voluntary for everyone involved at all times. If you want to give up your legal rights because you seriously think you will be eternally rewarded after you die, you're an idiot, but it's a free country.

Whilst I agree with you on the sky fairy stuff I'm not sure about arbitration with regard to how sharia law will be interpreted and administered within Britain. I think we would have real problems with getting a British consensus with regard to the interpretation of sharia law and balanced representation of people to sit in these "courts". I fear that we could gravitate towards people being coerced or threatened to use these courts rather than the alternative. That may even be occurring today. Voluntary to you and me is quite natural, we don't have any pressures to conform through family, relatives, neighbours or friends, with regard to which court system we use. I have no problem with the religious doing this under the current framework for legislation, however, at the moment I do not consider this to be a good idea with regard to islam and muslims. The law should protect the most vulnerable in society and I think in this case it won't.

Hoy! Refer to his views on all other issues, he's most definitely one of yours on the right.

And he looks like a tramp

poor bloke just can't win can he. Seems like no-one wants to know him.

Dr Williams, who was a professor of divinity at Oxford before becoming Archbishop of Wales in 1999, said he did not regret being arrested in the 1980s during a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demonstration at an American air base near Cambridge.

Primate will ask 'awkward questions' - Telegraph

He was a self-professed "hairy lefty," a Christian socialist arrested in a 1985 protest at a U.S. air base in England, who now criticizes the Iraq war.

Anglicanism in Crisis - TIME

In other areas, however, Rowan Williams will be more forthright. He still has strong views about the politics and social exclusion, the arms trade, sanctions on Iraq, and war in general even if he is not the unilateralist he was in the days when, describing himself as a "hairy lefty", he became involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and was arrested in 1985 for singing psalms on a US airbase in Cambridgeshire. He denounced the bombing of Afghanistan as "morally tainted" and the blast will be stronger still if Bush and Blair attack Iraq.

Rowan Williams: Intellect and humility – and very much his own man - People, News - Independent.co.uk

Anyone who's ever been in CND must have one hell of a conversion to become right of centre.

[usxhe190]

Whilst I agree with you on the sky fairy stuff I'm not sure about arbitration with regard to how sharia law will be interpreted and administered within Britain. I think we would have real problems with getting a British consensus with regard to the interpretation of sharia law and balanced representation of people to sit in these "courts". I fear that we could gravitate towards people being coerced or threatened to use these courts rather than the alternative. That may even be occurring today. Voluntary to you and me is quite natural, we don't have any pressures to conform through family, relatives, neighbours or friends, with regard to which court system we use. I have no problem with the religious doing this under the current framework for legislation, however, at the moment I do not consider this to be a good idea with regard to islam and muslims. The law should protect the most vulnerable in society and I think in this case it won't.

your assumption is that pressures, coerced or threatheed to go to a "special court" only applies or is more probable to islam and muslims due to their cultures - it might occur, it might not i don't know...but there are lots of pressures in our current system as well (whether to go to court or not, whether to go to arbitration or not, whether to settle out of court, etc) - just want to highlight this.

also, we already have voluntary opt in jewish courts (not sure whether your argument about pressures, coerced or threathens, etc applies for these courts though) United Synagogue - The United Synagogue - the london beth din - about us