House Of Evil / Seed Of Peace

[BVS]

The introduction of Sharia law into both European and UK laws is well-documented and easily researchable --

Nathan, come on you're better than this...

I'm disappointed.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Would love to see those documents, either. Must have happened without any European noticing.

I can say for Germany, at least, that no such thing has happened. We had this nutcase of a judge once a couple years back who said she thought the cultural and religious background should be considered when ruling in cases of domestic violence etc., but that was it. Her very private opinion she stupidly uttered when ruling in a case of a woman fleeing her violent husband.

Other than that, no Sharia law provisions even being discussed.

 

[dazzledbylight]

His one of his intentions to come to New York was to join the Qur'an burnings.

nice to meet you.

there's an article in our local progressive/liberal weeekly newspaper on Gheert <sp?> which I have to finish reading.

while he has the right to be here and hold his rally.......... BLEAH...go away! Go home! What ? You don't want him either?

We have quite a few vicious bigots & rascist groups to deal with here in the USA , I also try to keep up wityh news around the world. I might have heard of him without knowing the name. I certainly have read enough about the rise of Neo-nazis & racist skin-heads ( I know not all skin-heads aere rascist) in Europe over the last ? 10 - 20 years.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Finally, I don't know about the UK but at least some other European countries don't seem to be exactly primed to embrace Islam. Isn't it France that just banned wearing the head scarf for women?

That's kinda how I've understood it from the news reports I've heard, too, yeah.

Cartoonist Molly Norris in hiding after 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' picture | Mail Online


Am I supposed to feel bad for her?

I kinda do. Yes, I know that she should know how touchy Islam can be about the Mohammed thing and if she did this to knowingly provoke people, that's kinda dumb and silly, but at the same time, sorry, people, free speech is a two-way street. You can be offended all you want at the suggestion of somebody drawing a picture of the Islamic leader, but she still should be allowed to do it if she so wishes, as should anyone else. It's just a picture, it's not worth issuing fatwas over. Islamic extremists have no problem publicly desecrating symbols that mean something to other cultures, so they should be prepared to expect the same in return.

Now, of course, free speech laws vary from country to country, and so how the UK would handle this, I'm not sure. But in my personal opinion, she has the right to draw the picture or urge others to do so if she wants to, and those who are freaking out about it would do well to settle down.

Angela

 

[nathan1977]

Nathan, come on you're better than this...

I'm disappointed.

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online

Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes - Telegraph

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge | Mail Online

Successful rally against Sharia law in UK – 21 Nov 2009 - One law for all

Happier?

If I understand you correctly you're saying that European nations have allowed Sharia "courts" if you will to exist parallel to the secular courts?

That is, in fact, what's happened in the UK.

In other words religious matters can be resolved within the religion? Or are you saying that the laws that affect all citizens of the country are now informed by Sharia principles/beliefs. And what has been the result when Sharia and UK law have been in contradiction?

Sharia law in the UK has been specifically created to deal not just with religious matters, but also with domestic ones -- domestic abuse and divorce, specifically. In several documented cases, women who called the police because of accusations of domestic abuse later recanted when the local authorities turned the matter over to the Muslim courts.

Your point is well taken that Christians believe there are laws higher than those of man's. However, in a secular society, "divine law" (whatever the source) always takes a second position behind the laws that govern the nation. Are we saying now that this should not be the case?

 

[JanuaryStar]

I kinda do. Yes, I know that she should know how touchy Islam can be about the Mohammed thing and if she did this to knowingly provoke people, that's kinda dumb and silly, but at the same time, sorry, people, free speech is a two-way street. You can be offended all you want at the suggestion of somebody drawing a picture of the Islamic leader, but she still should be allowed to do it if she so wishes, as should anyone else. It's just a picture, it's not worth issuing fatwas over. Islamic extremists have no problem publicly desecrating symbols that mean something to other cultures, so they should be prepared to expect the same in return.

Now, of course, free speech laws vary from country to country, and so how the UK would handle this, I'm not sure. But in my personal opinion, she has the right to draw the picture or urge others to do so if she wants to, and those who are freaking out about it would do well to settle down.

Angela

Sharia law in the UK has been specifically created to deal not just with religious matters, but also with domestic ones -- domestic abuse and divorce, specifically. In several documented cases, women who called the police because of accusations of domestic abuse later recanted when the local authorities turned the matter over to the Muslim courts.

Your point is well taken that Christians believe there are laws higher than those of man's. However, in a secular society, "divine law" (whatever the source) always takes a second position behind the laws that govern the nation. Are we saying now that this should not be the case?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online

Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes - Telegraph

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge | Mail Online

Successful rally against Sharia law in UK – 21 Nov 2009 - One law for all

Happier?



That is, in fact, what's happened in the UK.



Sharia law in the UK has been specifically created to deal not just with religious matters, but also with domestic ones -- domestic abuse and divorce, specifically. In several documented cases, women who called the police because of accusations of domestic abuse later recanted when the local authorities turned the matter over to the Muslim courts.

Your point is well taken that Christians believe there are laws higher than those of man's. However, in a secular society, "divine law" (whatever the source) always takes a second position behind the laws that govern the nation. Are we saying now that this should not be the case?

From The Telegraph Article: Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Arbitration "tribunals", as they are called here, are a very old tradition in many European countries (also, mind you, Great Britain is not Europe, as much as Germany or Sweden or Italy aren't Europe. They are countries within Europe. So what happens in GB does not necessarily happen in Europe) which work beside the courts. Usually, so called ombudsman are employed to handle these cases. As mentioned in the article, both parties have to agree to take it before such a tribunal. Otherwise, it will go to a regular court.
I don't know of any European country, and neither of the EU, planning on introducing Sharia law into their domestic laws.

 

[deep]

There does seem to be some (or quite a bit) of push back against Islam in some European Countries.

Recent events in Sweden support this premise.

Burqa-clad mothers rob Swedish pensioner in attack ad | FP Passport


Sweden's far-right party secured 20 seats in the country's parliament in general elections over the weekend, the first time ever that it had won even a single seat.

 

[maycocksean]

Your point is well taken that Christians believe there are laws higher than those of man's. However, in a secular society, "divine law" (whatever the source) always takes a second position behind the laws that govern the nation. Are we saying now that this should not be the case?

Most certainly not. To be clear, I'm not arguing in support of Sharia law being incorporated into the secular laws of a country. I'm questioning the validity of your claim that this it is actually happening in Europe. . .well, okay Great Britain any way. I think someone--not necessarily you, but perhaps your source(s)--is spinning what's happened. It's late and I haven't had a chance to review the links you posted. But I will take a look at them.

And I do feel that there's somewhat of a double standard here. Are you equally as concerned about the Christians lobbying to get the 10 Commandments on the walls of our courthouses or prayers in our public schools? Or the Chrisitans working to make abortion illegal regardless of the cost to women? Do these attempts to get Christian law enshrined in our legal system concern you as well? Is it really that it's religious law being mixed with secular that concerns you or is it more that it's "bad" religious ideas (as opposed to "good" ones) being incorporated in Great Britain that concerns you.

I've been a long time supporter of a strict seperation of church and state (which means I often come across as much more liberal than my actual practice of my faith reflects), so I have no problem arguing agaisnt mixing ANY kind of religious law with secular law. What's your stance?

 

[nathan1977]

I do feel that there's somewhat of a double standard here. Are you equally as concerned about the Christians lobbying to get the 10 Commandments on the walls of our courthouses or prayers in our public schools? Or the Christians working to make abortion illegal regardless of the cost to women? Do these attempts to get Christian law enshrined in our legal system concern you as well? Is it really that it's religious law being mixed with secular that concerns you or is it more that it's "bad" religious ideas (as opposed to "good" ones) being incorporated in Great Britain that concerns you.

I honestly could care less about whether the Ten Commandments are inscribed on the walls of a courthouse, whether there's a Nativity scene on the city hall lawn, or whether there's prayer in public schools (as a friend of mine once said, as long as there are exams in school, there will be prayer in school). I agree with you that consistency is the key thing, and I do find it intriguing that some of the same FYMers who are so keen on protecting America from becoming a theocracy -- at least as it applies to Christianity -- are turning a blind eye to the equal threat that sharia law poses, particularly in the creation of a separate legal system. Islamofascism carries as much potential threat as Christofascism; both require equal vigilance.

 

[BVS]

and I do find it intriguing that some of the same FYMers who are so keen on protecting America from becoming a theocracy -- at least as it applies to Christianity -- are turning a blind eye to the equal threat that sharia law poses, particularly in the creation of a separate legal system.

And where are these FYMers?

I'm sorry, but you haven't presented a very strong case.

 

[BoMac]

I honestly could care less

couldn't

 

[nathan1977]

And where are these FYMers?

I'm sorry, but you haven't presented a very strong case.

I didn't realize I was making one.

 

[nathan1977]

couldn't

That, thank you.

 

[BVS]

I didn't realize I was making one.

Oh, so the whole sharia law thing was a joke?

Good one...

 

[nathan1977]

Oh, so the whole sharia law thing was a joke?

Good one...

Do you have something against reading newspapers?

 

[BVS]

Do you have something against reading newspapers?

Whatcha talkin bout Willis?

 

[nathan1977]

Whatcha talkin bout Willis?

The London Times, the London Telegraph, the London Mail articles I posted all document the rise of Sharia law in the UK, complete with its implications. There is no "case" to be made -- it's reality. And the basic assumptions that undergird UK and European (and American) law -- the rights of the individual, as well as basic equality rights, particularly for women -- are not ones necessarily shared by Sharia, as the below BBC article makes clear:

BBC NEWS | UK | Some Imams 'biased against women'

Additionally, after several years of debate (France to promote Islamic finance < French news | Expatica France), France also recently decided to adjust its economic policies to respect Sharia law when it comes to Islamic finance -- which apparently infuriated the Left, given France's staunchly secular identity.

http://arabnews.com/economy/islamicfinance/article127437.ece?service=print

The perception is that this may lead to encroachment of Sharia into France.

The non-partisan Center for Foreign Relations offers a fair and balanced exploration of the role of Sharia law here:

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

But it discusses the dual legal system as applied in the UK, and asks some direct questions: "Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity."

 

[BVS]

Is Sharia law the law of the land in the UK? Who is being forced to live under it and who's not?

 

[Vincent Vega]

The London Times, the London Telegraph, the London Mail articles I posted all document the rise of Sharia law in the UK, complete with its implications. There is no "case" to be made -- it's reality. And the basic assumptions that undergird UK and European (and American) law -- the rights of the individual, as well as basic equality rights, particularly for women -- are not ones necessarily shared by Sharia, as the below BBC article makes clear:

BBC NEWS | UK | Some Imams 'biased against women'

Additionally, after several years of debate (France to promote Islamic finance < French news | Expatica France), France also recently decided to adjust its economic policies to respect Sharia law when it comes to Islamic finance -- which apparently infuriated the Left, given France's staunchly secular identity.

http://arabnews.com/economy/islamicfinance/article127437.ece?service=print

The perception is that this may lead to encroachment of Sharia into France.

The non-partisan Center for Foreign Relations offers a fair and balanced exploration of the role of Sharia law here:

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

But it discusses the dual legal system as applied in the UK, and asks some direct questions: "Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity."

Now even mixing in Islamic Financing. Come on, when we go over to Saudi-Arabia, Dubai or any other Arab country we don't even think twice but just say: This is how we work, take this interest or be screwed. So we just dictate how the entire world has to do business, and if anyone even considers of maybe taking other philosophies into consideration it's: Sharia law is encroaching into our Western societies.

I agree wholeheartedly that Sharia law in legal issues has no place in European countries for various reasons, but when we are to do business world wide I cannot get this arrogance that the whole world should have to do it our way, and we should not adapt to their way at all.

 

[nathan1977]

Is Sharia law the law of the land in the UK? Who is being forced to live under it and who's not?

The question of which laws should ultimately take precedence is exactly the point, precisely because it is under dispute.

From the Times article:

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

From the Telegraph article:

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'Mediation verdicts which are incompatible with our own legal principles should never be enforceable. One of the key aspects of our free society is equality. This should be understood and respected by all.'

The parallel legal system is one of the issues discussed by the CFR:

"There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation," Britain's top judge, Lord Nicholas Phillips, said in a July 2008 speech (PDF). Supporters of this initiative, such as the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, argue that it would help maintain social cohesion (BBC) in European societies increasingly divided by religion. However, some research suggests the process to be discriminatory toward women (BBC). Other analysts suggest the system has led to grey areas. Britain's Muslims come from all over the world, Ishtiaq Ahmed, a spokesperson for the Council for Mosques in England, told the BBC, noting that this makes it hard to discern at times "where the rulings of the sharia finish and long-held cultural practices start."

 

[BVS]

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.


“If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

All of this is a far cry from:

The introduction of Sharia law into both European and UK laws

They have tribunals and yet not one article can tell me WHO is effected, or how binding any of it really is...

And not one even mentions anything about it being incorporated into UK law which is what it seemed you were trying to state earlier.

 

[nathan1977]

Yet not one article can tell me WHO is effected, or how binding any of it really is...

You mean besides women who want to divorce their husbands but are told to remain in the marriages, as the BBC reported?

And not one even mentions anything about it being incorporated into UK law which is what it seemed you were trying to state earlier.

Lord Phillips' comments as reported by the BBC bear some consideration:

Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, has said that principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system.

BBC NEWS | UK | Q&A: Sharia law explained

Practically, what this has meant is that there are areas where Sharia law takes precedence -- most notably family and divorce matters. The British government has in effect said that for a certain portion of the population, British law is superceded by Sharia law.

More alarming is this article in London's Daily Mail, which provides insight into the practical application of Sharia law in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html

Sharia has been operating here, in parallel to the British legal system, since 1982. Work includes issuing fatwas - religious rulings on matters ranging from why Islam considers homosexuality a sin to why two women are equivalent to one male witness in an Islamic court.

The Islamic Sharia Council also rules on individual cases, primarily in matters of Muslim personal or civil law: divorce, marriage, inheritance and settlement of dowry payments are the most common.

However, in the course of my investigation, I discovered how sharia is being used informally within the Muslim community to tackle crime such as gang fights or stabbings, bypassing police and the British court system.

Additionally, rulings by Sharia are enforceable by British high courts:

In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. Until last year, these rulings depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. But now, due to a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996, they are enforceable by county and high courts.

And to underline the inherent inequalities between the sexes that exist under sharia law, the Daily Mail points out that

Under Muslim law, a man can divorce his wife simply by uttering the word 'talaq', yet a woman cannot be granted a divorce without the consent of her husband or winning a dissolution of the marriage from the imam. Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too. ... The women I met were unwilling to talk directly about their cases. Apart from divorce being deeply personal, a failed marriage is often seen a source of shame in their communities - though the idea of bypassing sharia and seeking a divorce solely in the British courts would bring far more disgrace to a family's social standing. ... While sharia gives Muslim women a chance to escape unhappy marriages, it fails to grant them equal status - they are considered inferior to men as witnesses, they have unequal status in divorce and custody of the children, and abuse by the husband is not directly tackled by the courts. All these things go against the equality of British law.

 

[BVS]

You mean besides women who want to divorce their husbands but are told to remain in the marriages, as the BBC reported?

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Let me ask it this way: are all Muslims having to be governed by Sharia law? Are non-Muslims being governed by Sharia law? Is it all people who live on this block? Is it all people who attend this church?

How is it decided who listens to Sharia law and who doesn't?

Lord Phillips' comments as reported by the BBC bear some consideration:

Lots of "could"s "maybe"s and "if"s in these statements you're presenting. Have you noticed that?

Practically, what this has meant is that there are areas where Sharia law takes precedence -- most notably family and divorce matters. The British government has in effect said that for a certain portion of the population, British law is superceded by Sharia law.

Which portion of the population? And do you think it's not possible for the British Government to step in?

 

[nathan1977]

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Let me ask it this way: are all Muslims having to be governed by Sharia law? Are non-Muslims being governed by Sharia law? Is it all people who live on this block? Is it all people who attend this church?

I didn't realize the laws of a nation only applied to a portion of its population.

Lots of "could"s "maybe"s and "if"s in these statements you're presenting. Have you noticed that?

Lots of present-tense verbs in the Daily Mail article I posted. Have you noticed that?

And do you think it's not possible for the British Government to step in?

Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too.

 

[BVS]

I didn't realize the laws of a nation only applied to a portion of its population.

So if you moved there you believe you would have to live under Sharia law?

Not one of these articles have made any claim that they are the law of the nation.

You and the articles are not saying the same thing...

Even if the couple are divorced under British law, they remain married under Islam until divorced under the religious law, too.

Sounds like Catholicism doesn't it?

 

[nathan1977]

Not one of these articles have made any claim that they are the law of the nation.

They sure are for UK citizens who are Muslim women. Especially those trying to escape abusive marriages.

So if you moved there you believe you would have to live under Sharia law?

I didn't realize I should only care about those unequal laws that personally affect me.

And just to clarify in terms of what exactly Sharia law is and to whom it applies (again, from the CFR):

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.

Also meaning "path" in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

 

[BVS]

They sure are for UK citizens who are Muslim women. Especially those trying to escape abusive marriages.

Are you purposely being obtuse? It's getting very frustrating.

HOW IS IT DETERMINED WHICH MUSLIMS ARE UNDER SHARIA LAW AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT?

Just answer that question.

I didn't realize I should only care about those unequal laws that affect me personally.

Not what I'm saying but I'm trying to get you to understand this is NOT the law of the nation as you're trying to pretend.

 

[nathan1977]

Are you purposely being obtuse? It's getting very frustrating.

Are you purposely being ignorant? It's getting very frustrating.

HOW IS IT DETERMINED WHICH MUSLIMS ARE UNDER SHARIA LAW AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT?

Again, from the CFR:

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. ... sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

If you're a practicing Muslim, you're under Sharia. Regardless of the country's laws in which you live.

I'm trying to get you to understand this is NOT the law of the nation as you're trying to pretend.

And I'm trying to get you to understand that, as soon as the UK started allowing tribunals (and ultimately wound up having to enforce their rulings), in effect recognizing Sharia law, it IS the law of the nation for Muslim citizens.

 

[BVS]

If you're a practicing Muslim, you're under Sharia. Regardless of the country's laws in which you live.

This is false. You're not very in tune with this subject. The articles even address that it doesn't cover all Muslims.

And I'm trying to get you to understand that, as soon as the UK started allowing tribunals (and ultimately wound up having to enforce their rulings), in effect recognizing Sharia law, it IS the law of the nation for Muslim citizens.

How are the UK courts having to enforce their rulings? You just pointed out that a couple can be divorced under UK law but not so under Sharia law. You're contradicting yourself left and right.

Here's what I was trying to get you to figure out for yourself. These tribunals DO NOT cover all Muslims, only those Mosques that have them. Therefore in a way it's by choice. These laws ARE NOT changing or being incorporated into the actual law of the land.

What you're describing goes on in the states, but maybe to a lesser degree. Just like your example of divorce, the Catholic church has certain "laws" that don't recognize the law of the land. Also British law does have the power over these tribunals. Just like the law of the land here intervene's in times where we have religions that are practicing polygamy etc.