Sharia Law : Suggested by Smokey

[Sewer Side Cafe]

Following on from the illustrious, and delightfully flaming free debate on the BNP. We seem to have stumbled upon the topic of Sharia Law. What do we think? Should/ will/ can it exist in modern Britain?

[Mat^]

No?

Splush sez: if Mat^ posts something this lame here again he might just get a ban!

[Darkscull]

if they're like this:

You have to remember that these unnofficial sharia 'courts' would be subject to the rules of law in the UK. This means that they could not enforce any punishments, and could not try someone where the crime would be tried by the usual methods.

If an assault case was 'tried' in a sharia court, then it could not have been that severe (the defendent cannot chose to drop the case in s12 and s15 assualts - the more serious ones), and the judgement would not be enforceable. All that is happening is that the people involved are subjecting themselves voluntarily to this process.

This already happens in most small knit communities - people voluntarily follow certain rules etc - the difference is that this has a more formal setting.

then yes.

as he said, things like this are commonplace in tight-knit communities. I believe (i can find sources if anyone wants) that there are already community courts like this in many jewish communities in britain. there may also be some sikh ones, but i'm not sure.

also, there are several unofficial sharia courts already in existence that don't appear to have had any more adverse affects than their counterparts in other communities. (I can look for sources for that as well if someone doesn't believe me. i just saw them on TV).

it is an unfortunate fact that while these are voluntary participation projects, there will be some people who are pressured into it, effectively forcing them (not necessarily physically, but through the threat of ostracising and such) into abiding by the judgements.
i'm not excusing that, but it is a problem with any such thing like this, whether based on religion or not, and so islam shouldn't be singled out as a particular problem unless something specific crops up in the realm of misconduct.

[Splush]

As a voluntary community-level thing operating at a higher level to the laws of the land I kind of like the idea, as long as it's closely monitored to stop it getting out of hand, and as long as it never actually supercedes the laws of the land. Even beyond the example of Sharia law, I think the idea of voluntary community-centred rules and values is an interesting one.

I don't see Sharia ever becoming a mainstream thing for various reasons, though. And if Sharia law was ever incorporated into our official national legal system, unlikely as that situation sounds, it would be a fallacy to call that version of Britain 'modern'.

[Smokey]

I agree with Splush. Sharia Law is outdated in the same way that (IMO) religion is.

However, I see little harm in it being used in small cases in a community. Although, it must be remembered that under Sharia Law women are to cover their bodies except for their hands and faces. This is one of the outdated practices which needs to be removed from Sharia Law if it is to become a part in the mainstream.

[katt]

this charming idea of legal pluralism is well and good, but what happens when the first british citizen is dragged off before a court of sharia law against his will?

[Darkscull]

this charming idea of legal pluralism is well and good, but what happens when the first british citizen is dragged off before a court of sharia law against his will?

...


read the things people have been saying about the community court things. actually read them, please.


firstly, the muslims in britain are (mostly) british citizens.

secondly, people have been talking about the idea of the 'courts' existing under british law, and without real authority except what people are willing to give them.

dragging someone off somewhere is illegal under british law unless you're the police (and they have to have a justifiable reason based on british law to do it, although less so nowadays. but that's another debate)


if you are referring to muslims having an actual seperate legal system with the ability to lock people up and summon people and that doesn't have to obey british law, then say so.
commenting on your own idea straight after other people have been talking about different ideas requires you to say your idea, if you don't want to be misunderstood.

[katt]

...


dragging someone off somewhere is illegal under british law unless you're the police (and they have to have a justifiable reason based on british law to do it, although less so nowadays. but that's another debate)


.

doesn't mean they couldn't try it out for long enough to do some damage before the real law of the land took over.

I think it would just give people an extra feeling of righteousness (in numbers)to do something like that

edit: oh and muslim citizens could be victims of the mob mentality too! and they might be under more pressure to keep any injustices done in the name of sharia law hush

[gembird]

If Sharia law is used and regulated in the way that people have already described, I doubt that would happen. As a voluntary system to sort issues out before they go to court 'officially', Sharia law could work in small communities quite well. It'd basically be just a semi-formal way of settling disputes without getting a higher authority involved unnecessarily. In that situation, nobody could be forced to attend a Sharia court as it would probably not be a requirement under the national laws, plus the police wouldn't be involved and so there would be no real 'enforcement' as such.

[katt]

It'd basically be just a semi-formal way of settling disputes without getting a higher authority involved unnecessarily. .

and how many people might be legally short-changed and get bullied into not going to the real legal system by their peers?

[Darkscull]

doesn't mean they couldn't try it out for long enough to do some damage before the real law of the land took over.

I think it would just give people an extra feeling of righteousness (in numbers)to do something like that

edit: oh and muslim citizens could be victims of the mob mentality too! and they might be under more pressure to keep it hush

you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist sounds now.

if someone was essentially kidnapped and 'tried' - and then released (unless they decide to do the death penalty for everything, which is unlikely), then something makes me think they would be found out quite quickly.

also, no muslim community in britain is as insular and isolated as you seem to think. even when the horrific 'honour killings' occur, they're found out very quickly, even with little or no cooperation from the community.

not to mention the fact that such courts would be monitored (and are afaik, the ones that are already established, mainly from other religious communities).

if you still think that there's a danger of someone abusing these courts and breaking the law without being caught and punished, then say why, rather than just saying that there is.

edit:
and how many people might be legally short-changed and get bullied into not going to the real legal system by their peers?

that could (and probably, unfortunately, does) happen anyway, with or without these courts. these courts would make the process more formalised and allow monitoring of it.

[katt]

you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist sounds now.

.

heh orly. 10k followers of islam recently took to the street baying for blood after some silly teacher named a teddy bear mohammed with the nicest of intentions.

Obviously some of these folks are pretty sensitive where their religion is concerned and to allow them to form religious courts in a free land that already has a less biased legal system is superfluous idiocy.

I have heard reports of the islamic communities in france becoming so tight knit that they managed to close things like liquor stores and theaters down

[gembird]

and how many people might be legally short-changed and get bullied into not going to the real legal system by their peers?

To be fair, you get dodgy policemen that bully people into doing or saying things they don't want to, and they're part of the real legal system. And that's just the officials- think about how normal people coerce others into not telling the truth or not speaking up when they should, so they can cover their own backsides at the expense of the victim of the crime.

Things like that happen anyway, whether religion is involved or not, and it's just as likely to happen in a situation where the Sharia court wouldn't have any power- i.e. a more serious crime which would go straight to the secular, national courts of law.

It bothers me slightly that you appear to either have a problem with Islam in particular or you find it hard to voice your thoughts correctly. If neither is the case, I suggest you find out a bit more about the religion for yourself and stop implying that it's so much worse than other religions.

Edit:
I have heard reports of the islamic communities in france becoming so tight knit that they managed to close things like liquor stores and theaters down

Yeah, and I've heard similar things about other religious communities, there are variations in all of them. I could talk endlessly about Tipper Gore and the constant campaigns in the name of <insert religion/god/prophet here> to ban the things I enjoy, but that's for other threads.

[Darkscull]

the thread is about britain.

the muslims in britain are not the general muslim populace of sudan.
the type of people who were marching then are the same who march in various mainly muslim countries against the crimes and perceived crimes of 'the west'. they aren't the sort of people who emigrate to britain, unless you think that they would come here for the sole purpose of trying to take over. if you do, then you are a conspiracy theorist*

issues of immigration and interactions with immigrants (even the descendants of people who immigrated several generations ago) are extremely different in france than in britain.
the government treat them completely differently, and they are much less integrated into the economic/social/cultural fabric of the country than their counterparts in britain.

obviously you don't need to be british to post, but referring to things that have happened in different countries in different atmospheres doesn't really say anything about the situation at hand. (unless you're saying that muslims behave the same everywhere, that is, but i don't think you are, are you?)


*although i do know there have been several radical muslim clerics who appear to have come here for the sole purpose of stirring trouble and radicalising british muslims, but they've made that their career, rather than coming here to live.

[katt]

they aren't the sort of people who emigrate to britain, unless you think that they would come here for the sole purpose of trying to take over. i .

and yet honor killings are becoming a growing problem in western countries.

why should islamic people get special treatment with regards to the legal system?

Why should a country that already has a good legal system bend over backwards to allow a group of people to practice law as they see fit?

What happened to 'all are equal before the eyes of the law?'

Why should one particular group of people get such special treatment in the name of religion in a supposedly secular state?

There is no answer except pure foolishness.

[gembird]

Well I don't see where anyone has said that other religious communities can't have their own equivalent if they want it.

Or where anyone has said it would be recognised as being equal to secular law. I'm pretty sure some of us have already emphasised that we only think it would work if it was regulated by higher authorities- basically, making it a kind of small-claims court. I know that isn't the best analogy but it's the best i can come up with at ten past eleven.

[Darkscull]

and yet honor killings are becoming a growing problem in western countries.

as are other crimes, while some are dropping.

the rates of such crimes says nothing about how they are dealt with. it would be impossible to predict every such occurrence, only those where attention is drawn to the situation before it gets too far (whether or not they are dealt with well in that situation is another debate).

why should islamic people get special treatment with regards to the legal system?

read what people have been saying. if you aren't referring to that, but to different ideas, then say so.

Why should a country that already has a good legal system bend over backwards to allow a group of people to practice law as they see fit?

read what people have been saying. if you aren't referring to that, but to different ideas, then say so.

What happened to 'all are equal before the eyes of the law?'

read what people have been saying. if you aren't referring to that, but to different ideas, then say so.

Why should one particular group of people get such special treatment in the name of religion in a supposedly secular state?

read what people have been saying. specifically, that there are already such community courts for other communities, mainly religious ones. if you don't believe that, then say so and sources will be found.


sorry about the spammy sort of post people, but maybe this time it'll sink in.

[katt]

well if it was the same as secular law there would not be a need for sharia law courts. obviously that means sharia law would have some major differences from secular law both in terms of punishments and in terms of what constitutes a crime.

If the british legal system recognized these differences in the name of religion as being viable legally among certain citizens then they would be injecting religion into their own legal system and fostering an unnecessary duality in standards.

[Darkscull]

well if it was the same as secular law there would not be a need for sharia law courts. obviously that means sharia law would have some major differences from secular law both in terms of punishments and in terms of what constitutes a crime.

If the british legal system recognized these differences in the name of religion as being viable legally among certain citizens then they would be injecting religion into their own legal system and fostering an unnecessary duality in standards.


do you get the idea of a community court (completely remove religion from the equation)?

assuming you don't, i shall explain:

it is an organisation, like a town council sort of thing, where people can take their grievances and a panel of magistrates (or just one) selected in some way (whether through a formal election, or nomination and poll taking (ie, all in favour say "aye"), or some other way), makes a judgement on the case.
it is then up to the people involved to work out the enforcing of that judgement, or to not enforce it at all.
the point of it is to take things that don't warrant the full involvement of the authorities and get an impartial, respected, wise (or whatever things the people selected by) person to give their verdict.

now, do you understand what the majority of sharia law is?

for the most part it is a guide to behaviour and rules to live by not that different from the jewish equivalent (hopefully you know a bit about that, since more people are aware of jewish traditions than muslim traditions). so it has things to say on such things as financial transactions, and wills, and such, as well as the more publicised things on marriage and the authority of the father/husband.

it is far from set in stone, and there are varying interpretations of it even within traditional muslim countries. so in these courts, it's application would be limited to those things that aren't covered by british law, and the court would (as has been said) not be allowed to break british law (and if they did, it would be a crime, just like if anyone else broke the law).

also, these courts would not just be an organ for processing things through sharia law (which, as i've just said, is far from a formalised, static system), but also would serve as a slightly more formalised way of consulting the 'elders' of the community, like many people consult their imams (or whatever, there are several terms)/priests/rabbis/ministers/etc. on things that there may well not be religious precedent and law for.

because you probably haven't read what people have been saying, i shall clarify:

these courts would NOT be a replacement for british law, nor would they exist alongside it, but rather below it.
they would not have any official authority, especially not the authority to enforce punishment on a person against their will.
(not that many people are willing to be punished, but i mean things like compensation and fines and community service that the person needs to cooperate with even in real courts).

edit: that clarification was on what people have been talking about here.
as i've said many times. if you're talking about something different, ie: the opposite of my clarification, then say so.

[Splush]

supposedly secular state
This is rather off-topic but just for the sake of accuracy I'd be hesitant to call the UK a secular state. We don't have any formal separation of church and state here, our head of state is also the head of our state religion, the state funds faith-based schools (christian, jewish, muslim and sikh), including city academies that use public money to teach creationism, and all state schools are required to organise collective (christian-oriented) worship. Gordon Brown has been talking about changes that could eventually lead to a proper written constitution which would be delightful, but in the meantime we can't really claim to be secular here.

This doesn't have any particular bearing on the argument going on right now, I just think it's always worth mentioning.

[katt]

do you get the idea of a community court

The community courts usually operate bearing in mind the existing laws of the country though (as opposed to a set of religious law standards prevalent in various other countries)

<<<The Community Court deals with a wide array of crimes including simple possession of marijuana, breach of peace, criminal mischief, criminal trespass, larceny (shoplifting), disorderly conduct, threatening, prostitution, solicitation of prostitutes, illegal liquor possession by a minor, public nuisance, public drunkenness, excessive noise, and illegal vending. Most defendants are issued a summons and/or are arrested and are required to appear at Community Court within two business days of being arrested. >>>


, and such, as well as the more publicised things on marriage and the authority of the father/husband.

so if a sharia court decided some husband or father had the right to do this or that would it stand? how could you make sure the participants were not bullied into accepting a ruling by these courts?




these courts would NOT be a replacement for british law, nor would they exist alongside it, but rather below it.
they would not have any official authority, especially not the authority to enforce punishment on a person against their will.

.


If they have no legal authority to do anything then why do they need to exist and cause the existing legal system the burden of monitoring them to make sure they do not try and act above their authority/force people (mostly muslims) into accepting religious laws based on the community they live in and the family they were born into.

If someone wants to discuss their misdeeds with an imam/elders that is one thing but to say that a "court" needs to be set up is a tricky sort of thing. Courts, by definition, usually have some sort of sway or authority even if it is just browbeating someone into accepting some sort of crappy deal

I ask again: if they have no real authority why do they need to exist? It would end up causing a lot of people to be bullied into stuff (ie falsely smiling and accept the ruling so as not to irritate the mob)

edit: also I dont see it as staying limited to what is not covered by british law. I see it as potentially (well actually it already has ..in that somali stabbing case i mentioned in the other thread) expanding beyond that in the welcoming arms of the left.

would a muslim who stole something from a non-muslim (or a muslim who would prefer to not be in a sharia law court) get to have it settled only by a sharia law court? would a lenient penalty for a muslim stealing from a non-muslim (lets imagine for a minute they forget that whole sharia law business of lopping off hands and feet) trump a britsh legal penalty because of the person's religious identity? or would it be settled in two separate courts?

would the guilty be potentially punished twice or brought to court twice? it would be a mess

[Smokey]

I think what people are proposing is to set up a community court system based around some of the ideas of Sharia Law which are similar to concepts already in place in British Law.

For small crimes the perpatrator can choose either the law court or the small community court for the their prosecution. This way maybe we could cut down on the number of petty criminals who end up in prison.

Sharia Law varies from Muslim state to state. Sudan is one of the only places where it is illegal to name an animal Muhammad. Many other muslim children can and do name their toys after prophets including Muhammad. Although interestingly many Muslims would not give a pet a name in the first place.

Also, so called 'honor killings' are not supported by Sharia Law.

[faragher]

edit: also I dont see it as staying limited to what is not covered by british law. I see it as potentially (well actually it already has ..in that somali stabbing case i mentioned in the other thread) expanding beyond that in the welcoming arms of the left.

would a muslim who stole something from a non-muslim (or a muslim who would prefer to not be in a sharia law court) get to have it settled only by a sharia law court? would a lenient penalty for a muslim stealing from a non-muslim (lets imagine for a minute they forget that whole sharia law business of lopping off hands and feet) trump a britsh legal penalty because of the person's religious identity? or would it be settled in two separate courts?

would the guilty be potentially punished twice or brought to court twice? it would be a messYou are massively overanalysing this. A sharia 'court' would be a voluntary arrangement and would only be allowed to sit on matters that did not have a place in an ordinary UK court.

In the UK (much as in the US) there are a number of tiers of offences. Some of these (such as murder, serious or grevious assaults, aggravated burglaries and robberies for example) will always be tried in a court, irrespective of the wish of the victims. These are prosecutions bought by the state against the individual. For some offences, it is the choice of the victim whether or not to 'press charges' - this applies to some thefts, some assaults etc*

Where the offence falls into the first category above, there is no way that a sharia 'court' could sit. Where it falls into the second category, there are three possible outcomes.

1) Case is tried in a UK court with all the implications therein.
2) Case is tried in a Sharia 'court' - this would be reliant on both the individuals agreeing to its judgement - and the judgements would have to fall within the law - you are not allowed to cut off someones hand in the UK, even with their explicit consent. The fines and/or incarceration would also be unenforceable in theory.
3) Case is not tried.

I can see that the court would sit on matters that were specific to its members, such as the moral behaviour of the individual, and the punishments would not be much worse that being expelled from a mosque or making some gesture of reparation...

Wait a minute! You know what this reminds me off? EVERY CHURCH IN THE WORLD. They often make moral judgements that are outside the law, and oblige their voluntary members to adhere to them (No adultury for example - this is not a legal issue, it is a moral one). And if they don't adhere, then it is penitence or excommunication (to use the catholic terms).

This is all that the sharia 'courts' will be able to do. No-one who doesn't wish to will be obliged to bend to their will (except maybe some kids, but then most kids are forced to bend to their parents religious or political beliefs initially anyway until they get old enough to make their own minds up).


* I know that this is massively oversimplified, but you kind of get the point yar?

[katt]

You are massively overanalysing this. A sharia 'court' would be a voluntary arrangement and would only be allowed to sit on matters that did not have a place in an ordinary UK court.


And how could you ensure that the existence of sharia law courts would never encourage adherents of islam to keep certain crimes (violence, theft, rape) clandestine from the british legal system?

If they had their own network of justice to rely upon, tucked safely away in the backstreets (perhaps even separated by a language barrier ) then perhaps some injustices could be committed and tried with the british legal system being none the wiser.

The british legal system initially had no idea about the somali stabbing that had already been tried in a somali court.




2) Case is tried in a Sharia 'court' - this would be reliant on both the individuals agreeing to its judgement - and the judgements would have to fall within the law - you are not allowed to cut off someones hand in the UK, even with their explicit consent. The fines and/or incarceration would also be unenforceable in theory.


I only mentioned the hand thing as a reminder that sharia law can be brutal in some of its 'cultural interpretations'



Wait a minute! You know what this reminds me off? EVERY CHURCH IN THE WORLD. They often make moral judgements that are outside the law, and oblige their voluntary members to adhere to them (No adultury for example - this is not a legal issue, it is a moral one). And if they don't adhere, then it is penitence or excommunication (to use the catholic terms).

size]

a church/mosque/temple is a different thing. Seeking verbal counsel and guidance on moral issues is a totally different thing from having punishments doled out and enforced.

Also not all churches will excommunicate someone for sin.

If the sharia courts were just that (verbal counsel without sentence) then they would hardly be called a court and we would not be having this argument.


this is slightly unrelated but i am using it as an example of just how insane some people get with the dual-culture pandering:

Last week, the German mass-circulation newspaper Bild asked in a front-page headline "Where are we living?" The question was prompted by the ruling of a judge in a German court who cited the Koran in her rejection of a Muslim woman's request for a quick divorce on grounds she was abused by her husband.

Judge Christa Datz-Winter said in a recommendation earlier this year that both partners came from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife," according to the court. The woman is a German of Moroccan descent married to a Moroccan citizen.

The judge argued that her case was not one of exceptional hardship in which fast-track divorce proceedings would be justified. When the woman protested, Datz-Winter cited a passage from the Koran to back up her argument that reads in part, "men are in charge of women." The judge was removed from the case and the Frankfurt administrative court said it was considering disciplinary measures against her. Court vice president Bernhard Olp said Thursday the judge "regrets that the impression arose that she approves of violence in marriage."

Obviously the woman was out of line and called on it. But I have a feeling a lot of nutjobs like that are proponets of these sharia courts; afraid to stand up and say 'the way we do things is better' in fear of offending someone

[gembird]

And how could you ensure that the existence of sharia law courts would never encourage adherents of islam to keep certain crimes (violence, theft, rape) clandestine from the british legal system?

Plenty of people keep acts such as rape secret (we think, obviously we can never tell). Not all of them are of a particular religion. Therefore, religion is probably irrelevant when it comes to reporting a crime. I'm not going to say that's always true, but think about the girls and women who have gone into hiding because they have gone to the police about honour killings and so on- as much as they valued their community, they knew what was happening was wrong.

A person's innate sense of right and wrong is shaped by their faith, but not totally responsible for it to the extent where every single religious person would go out of their way to keep their faith and break the law.

[katt]

I suppose if the sharia courts truly play nice and are always intended to bow in deference british law then they are not an earth-shatteringly bad thing.

but, being the cynic i am about mob mentality I think they will be used for all sorts of shady business (including taking pride in transporting part of what makes the countries they immigrated from bad places to live in the first place ..ie sharia law.)

it is so ironic. "we are immigrating to seek a better life yet we still want to cling as best we can to the draconian laws which made our native land oppressive in the first place"

Also, I think a lot of people (such as that german judge) are absolute nutters about cultural relativism and if they somehow manage to shriek loud enough and get their way the courts could end up competing with the actual law of the land.

There is an old analogy about how people are subjected to political change: the boiling frog. If you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn up the heat it will stay in the pot and not have the wits to realize it is being messed with because the changes are mild to begin with.

Today it might be considered unfair to stop islamic peoples from using sharia law to cover mild things that the british system does not cover. tomorrow it might be unfair to refuse them legal pluralism on more serious things that are already covered by british laww.

and there will always be people too scared to stand up for their own culture and say knock it off because they are afraid of offending

[gembird]

but, being the cynic i am about mob mentality I think they will be used for all sorts of shady business

I can sort of see where you're coming from there- I said that there are always people who will abuse the fears of others in situations like this to get away with things. However I think there are people like that everywhere, it's far from restricted to the Muslim community.

[faragher]

Also, if we always thought that the worse will happen when we tried something new, we would still be eating moss and banging rocks together.

We cannot discount changes to the way we do things because "they might behave badly" - we need to measure the impact of the positive against the negative.

[Splush]

Also, if we always thought that the worse will happen when we tried something new, we would still be eating moss and banging rocks together.
This is basically what I was thinking. I think anybody would acknowledge that there's risks to changes like this but if we forbid people from trying new things on the basis that they could possibly go badly then we're a pretty dismal society, as well as severely lacking in confidence if we think we won't be able to fix things if they do go badly.

[katt]

Also, if we always thought that the worse will happen when we tried something new, we would still be eating moss and banging rocks together.

We cannot discount changes to the way we do things because "they might behave badly" - we need to measure the impact of the positive against the negative.

I think this is more of a case of allowing a sizeable amount of the population to make steps towards the legal equivalent of 'banging rocks and eating moss' while standing in the wings oohing and awwing how cute it is.

something 'new' doesnt automatically mean it is progress. it would be a new idea to reintroduce slavery in the united states but that isnt progress. nor would fixing every car so it can only go 3 miles an hour be progress. or being afraid the devil is going to steal your potatoes.

What positives could possibly come from allowing people to cling as best they can to sharia law, a draconian system which made the lands they formerly lived in unpleasant in the first place?

all i see are potential negatives

1. allow them to see their old ways as superior to those of their new country.
2. potential for abuse/bullying
3. trouble of monitoring the courts (and the fact the courts do get some funding and tax breaks)
4. might provide an alternate means of justice that allows crime to be sentenced and covered up from british law
5. encourages a divide from british society rather than a joining

on the right we look at what is going on and shake our heads and wonder if some people actually want to someday have a country that is truly pluralized legally. to us it is a logical outcome of where this is headed

[Splush]

Personally, the positive is striving to let people do what they want as much as possible, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. That should be positive enough, for me.

[katt]

well no one in this thread can gurantee the courts will not cause misery in terms of community bullying. or in terms of the folks who have to fork over taxes knowing it could partially end up subsidizing this nonsense lol.

not to mention the fact you are giving something that symbolizes the antithesis of traditional western 'personal freedoms' the green flag and backing it up with the idea of western personal freedoms which is somewhat ironic.

It is one thing to allow personal freedom but it is another to say freedom gives some people the right to set up courts that make the people (bullied?) in them less free than others.

[Splush]

You're acting as if everybody's inviting alternative legal systems to come into the UK and run riot unrestricted, and I don't think anybody in this thread is supporting that. I think everyone agrees that lots of monitoring and intervention would be required to ensure that things don't get out of hand and nobody is submitted to sharia involuntarily, but that goes for every freedom, we need to make sure people don't exploit any kind of freedom. But the idea that we just somehow decide that certain freedoms are going to be too expensive, or too likely to be abused and just choose to shut them down is incredibly unsatisfying to me.

I think this just comes down to a difference in philosophies. I'd be proud to live in a country that strives to accomodate freedoms as much as possible,and I'm happy to pay taxes to ensure that's done fairly and safely. I don't like sharia law but I think people should be allowed to practice it in the same sense that I don't like heroin but I think people should be allowed to use it. I know you disagree with me there as well, and I think that's just another facet of the same difference in philosophy. I believe that there are moral absolutes, but I don't feel like the moral appropriateness of sharia is one that british politicians are entitled to make a judgement on, although they can make judgements on specific outcomes that might arise, such as the possible bullying you mention.

I think questioning the sharia courts attitude to freedom is moot, because the condition for their existence is that people subscribe to them voluntarily.

edit: I have to say that when I first heard about the unofficial instances of sharia law popping up in Britain I was fairly appalled, outraged, and felt like they should be stamped out without question. It took a lot of pondering and debating to change my mind. It's certainly not something to be taken lightly.

[gembird]

Surely none of the rest of us think it's a good idea to let Sharia law replace the current legal system in any sense? If everything is monitored and done properly it's just a more comfortable setting for those members of society who originally came from a different society and might be a bit intimidated by the police- they're more likely to trust the people who hold positions of authority in their own community. That's all it would be really- I can't see how it would get out of hand because it would be the first port of call for minor neighbourhood disputes and petty crimes , before heading off to an official court.

Haven't I said this before?

Anyway, I don't think it would mean the end of personal freedoms for anyone- if someone chooses to respect Sharia law by choosing it as a system to solve their problem, that's fine. But if someone outside of the community was involved in the crime as a victim they would go to the police instead and the Sharia law would have no power to interfere. If they were the perpetrator, the police would still have to get involved as Sharia law most likely wouldn't apply to them.

[Pilk Man]

The thing that worries me about this concept is what will happen if the extremist element start to get the wrong idea.

Honour killings, acid attacks on women etc. have all happened in Britain in the past and, IMO, adding a court setting using Islamic law (and even the vague hint of any legal power) will contribute to it happening more and more.

I, personally, see no point in the idea. If the courts will have no legal powers, are they actually courts? Not really. I think community policing (by the british police + legally empowered) is a much safer way to go about these kinds of duties. I can also see how this kind of court system would create further inter-race segregation within communities. One court for muslims and another court for non-muslims? Sounds like racist division.

I, for one, am against this. If Islamic law is ever declared in Britain (even at community level), it will be an major setback both in the quest to secure our homeland from terrorism and in the mission to unite the various races of britain. [/dramaqueen]

[Splush]

If Islamic law is ever declared in Britain (even at community level), it will be an major setback both in the quest to secure our homeland from terrorism and in the mission to unite the various races of britain. [/dramaqueen]
Couldn't it have the opposite effect though, and show muslims that we in the west don't all think our values are necessarily superior, and that we're willing to understand people and cooperate with them? I'm aware that I'm sounding like a total hippy here :)

[Pilk Man]

Well that's a lovely dream, but let's be honest, the branch of Islam you're trying to send the message to is far beyond logical, forward-thinking reason.

I make it my business to embrace different cultures etc. don't get me wrong, but the atheist in me thinks very strongly that any form of actively religion-based governmental practice is a bad idea, ESPECIALLY if there's an extremist element chomping the bit to exploit such an opening.

What's wrong with having muslim councilmen etc? I'd be well up for a few here and there and by mixing muslim and non-muslim councilmen/women together, it would be MUCH easier to spot an upcoming extremist element and eradicate it. As has already been seen in Imans (or whatever they're called) throughout the UK, the desire of the extremist to corrupt the young and vulnerable is VERY strong.

By creating mixed Muslim/non Muslim councils etc. you would have plenty of input from the Islamic community (very valuable, I think you'll agree) as well as British/UK input, resulting (hopefully) in a mutually beneficial working relationship.

I'm personally against any government-related religion in the UK anyway, especially if it's mixed with the legal system (even at the lowest level). You live in the UK, you obey UK law. End of.

[katt]

You're acting as if everybody's inviting alternative legal systems to come into the UK and run riot unrestricted, and I don't think anybody in this thread is supporting that. I think everyone agrees that lots of monitoring and intervention would be required to ensure that things don't get out of hand and nobody is submitted to sharia involuntarily, but that goes for every freedom, we need to make sure people don't exploit any kind of freedom.

No I realize no one is. I am saying that people who WOULD support it exist (like that german judge). I am also saying that once you give some power to these 'courts' they could grow in power over time (the frog boiling in water analogy of political change).

it is better to nip the bud


But the idea that we just somehow decide that certain freedoms are going to be too expensive, .

if you look at it from the other persepctive it is denying the taxpayer's freedom not to subsidize an unnecessary religious legal system from the stone age in their country.

In the united states i think sharia courts would be shot down very quickly by people taking it to court as being unconstitutional due to mixing church and state.

anyway i say the people who think its so great should be the only ones footing the bill and not give the bill to the people who don't want their hard earned tax money used to buy bullets to shoot the country in the foot

tax money should not be abused to conduct social experiments. this is why i am for low taxes because the more tax money politicians have the more hare brained schemes they can find to spend it on.



I think questioning the sharia courts attitude to freedom is moot, because the condition for their existence is that people subscribe to them voluntarily.

.

well the opposition is afraid the extremist element will take hold and grow and cause mob bullying. One major sharia court is found in the exact neighborhood the london bombers lived in


Effectively, the integrity of British law has been eclipsed in parts of Dewsbury by quasi-judicial religious zealotry. In this once proud Yorkshire mill town, there are now two legal systems in operation for civil matters, one for Muslims and one for the rest of the population. This is a recipe for more division in a place already notorious for its links to fanatical Islam. Dewsbury was, after all, the home town of Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers

[Splush]

Well that's a lovely dream, but let's be honest, the branch of Islam you're trying to send the message to is far beyond logical, forward-thinking reason.
But to treat whole muslim populations as if they can't be cooperated with just based on the actions of a extremist majority is no way to make friends, and probably a good way to go about creating more people who bitterly hate the west. Not that you can blame the west for islamic terrorism's existence, but it seems self-evident that we should be trying to foster peaceful cooperation, if only for the practical reason of stopping ourselves from getting blown up.

What's wrong with having muslim councilmen etc?
Nothing's wrong with them, we already have them and they're a very good thing. But they're a different issue to Sharia courts.

You live in the UK, you obey UK law. End of.
Yeah, and this is a debate about whether we should change UK law to recognise sharia courts at some level, so that participation in them is legal. The question isn't "should we let people stone each other in the street while the police just look the other way".


if you look at it from the other persepctive it is denying the taxpayer's freedom not to subsidize an unnecessary religious legal system from the stone age in their country.

anyway i say the people who think its so great should be the only ones footing the bill and not give the bill to the people who don't want their hard earned tax money used to buy bullets to shoot the country in the foot
Well the taxpayers should only pay for it if the majority of the population supports the idea. If the majority doesn't support the idea then it just shouldn't happen. I'm not saying we should force sharia on an unwilling populace.

tax money should not be abused to conduct social experiments. this is why i am for low taxes because the more tax money politicians have the more hare brained schemes they can find to spend it on.
Tax money should be used to do what the people want done with it, and if the people support this 'social experiment' then that's what it should be spent on.

I think a change like this would certainly have to come down to a refferendum, and I'm certain the results would not be in favour of it. But if the majority did vote in favour of it, it would surely be acceptable to use public money to implement it.

I think that's all I have to say in this thread. I really do feel like this just comes down to a fundamental difference in philosophy and nobody's about to have their mind changed.

[gembird]

In the united states i think sharia courts would be shot down very quickly by people taking it to court as being unconstitutional due to mixing church and state.

I find it odd how that's probably true, and yet the same people would happily refer to the USA as being 'one nation under God' even though, like you said, mixing church and state is unconstitutional. However that isn't the issue here.

I think what it all boils down to is how far it all goes, and like Splush said it wouldn't go far because there wouldn't be enough people who agreed with it in the first place.

[bobfrey the great]

Should it - No, it is ridiculously narrow minded and sexist with harsh punishments for things which aren't really crimes
Will it - no, too many non-muslims in the country, as it is a christian one. Though there don't seem to be many of those anymore. And the ones there are ussually annoy me by saying 'I'm christan so being gay is wrong.' I was brought up christian and have no problem with gays so please go to hell. (bit off topic sorry)
Can it - no, again too many non-muslims here, humanitarians against lashings etc.

[Lewiji]

Should it - No, it is ridiculously narrow minded and sexist with harsh punishments for things which aren't really crimes
Will it - no, too many non-muslims in the country, as it is a christian one. Though there don't seem to be many of those anymore. And the ones there are ussually annoy me by saying 'I'm christan so being gay is wrong.' I was brought up christian and have no problem with gays so please go to hell. (bit off topic sorry)
Can it - no, again too many non-muslims here, humanitarians against lashings etc.
Please read the thread before posting! As repeated many times for the benefit of other people who ignore posts (mentioning no names), community courts operating with a Sharia aspect would have to still abide by UK law, as they are in the UK. No lashings, no hands being chopped off - and as katt said sure this could be hidden from the law system but if the community wanted to chop someone's hand off so badly they'd do it regardless of a Sharia court.

I personally think it is a good idea. Maybe it's superfluous, maybe it will cost a little extra money (perhaps we could spend less on superfluous wars instead, but that's for another thread), but overall it's promoting a good message in religious equality. There is no reason why 2 individuals wishing to press charges under (regulated) Sharia ideas can't do so, and having this done officially via a court rather than in private can only be a good thing.

[katt]

Well the taxpayers should only pay for it if the majority of the population supports the idea. If the majority doesn't support the idea then it just shouldn't happen. I'm not saying we should force sharia on an unwilling populace.


Tax money should be used to do what the people want done with it, and if the people support this 'social experiment' then that's what it should be spent on.

.

I would bet money that if a national vote was taken the results would come out against sharia law.


as for post ignoring...i ignore posts that i feel do not offer compelling reasoning. I realized through the whole thread that (probably) no one posting in this thread wants sharia law to have priority over british law but my point was the courts can grown in power.

The argument "but it won't be more powerful than british law" is NOT a good argument for why it should exist in the first place. It offers no elaboration on why the courts are a good thing. The argument that it is being nice and allowing people to be free also isn't that strong (especially since the courts would take away freedoms among certain citizens who would get hassled into the courts..and freedom does not always mean you have the right to create your own laws)

People have occasionally ignored my list of drawbacks:



1. allow them to see their old ways as superior to those of their new country.
2. potential for abuse/bullying
3. trouble of monitoring the courts (and the fact the courts do get some funding and tax breaks)
4. might provide an alternate means of justice that allows crime to be sentenced and covered up from british law
5. possibly encourages a divide from british society rather than a joining
6. possibly encourage the extremist element to take hold *****
7. taking freedoms away from certain citizens who could get drawn up into the power of the courts (who might otherwise prefer to not have such courts but get shoved into it because of family reasons)
8. potential for courts to grow in power slowly over time at the hands of extreme cultural relativists/extremist muslims

******Originally Posted by daily express
Effectively, the integrity of British law has been eclipsed in parts of Dewsbury by quasi-judicial religious zealotry. In this once proud Yorkshire mill town, there are now two legal systems in operation for civil matters, one for Muslims and one for the rest of the population. This is a recipe for more division in a place already notorious for its links to fanatical Islam. Dewsbury was, after all, the home town of Mohammed Siddique Khan, the leader of the July 7 suicide bombers