Introduction of Sharia Law to Britain? Good or bad idea?

[Mister Qwerty]

As most of you are probably aware, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams made a speech which involved considering the introduction of some aspects of Sharia Law to Britain, these would include Muslim divorce courts ect.. This speech was met with a great deal of negativity from the general public, the government, and the Church of England, in fact, The Sun newspaper have even gone to the lengths of putting in a petiton to get the Archbishop sacked.

In my opinion, certain aspects of Sharia Law would benefit Britain, as we are rapidly becoming more multicultural. Of course, most people see Sharia Law as torturing and executions, among over things. However, Dr. Williams wants to introduce the divorce court in order to help Muslim marital disputes. Yet he is still facing many calls to resign from angry members of the public, even some of his most trusted colleagues. What is your view on the introduction of Sharia Law to Britain? Would it ruin the current legal system, or would it benefit it by helping to create a more multicultural society?

[doctor_fruitbat]

He's not exactly proposing that things such as murder and theft should come under Sharial law, just things like marriage and divorce, things that can afford to have a bit of leeway in order to reflect individual tastes and traditions. He'd be deluded in the extreme if he was proposing anything that would undermine the basic moralities underlying our legal system. Frankly, I'm pleasantly surprised that he's been mature enough to come out and say that with some things in life, it's okay to have a few different options. Demanding that he be sacked in what I can only assume is a reactionary ZOMG DEY'S TAKIN US OVER! response is only going to annoy people, who could quite justifiably see it as a barely-thought-out opposition to their culture as a whole.

[Darkscull]

the only objections will be either objection to sharia law in principle, or they'll be the 'foot in the door' argument.
see the last thread on sharia law (which was about sharia law in community courts) to see examples.

[Splush]

Link to last thread. (http://forums.weebls-stuff.com/showthread.php?t=69712)

Link to a whole bunch of words that Rowan Williams said and nobody is going to read. (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575)

I suppose my opinions are still the same as they were in that thread, I'm generally in favour of something like community courts as long as they're voluntary and exist in cooperation with statutory law rather than being a distinct alternative to it. Which is to say, for example, that people shouldn't be able to subscribe to a community court to avoid a harsher punishment from the national justice system, and that generally the state would have to keep an eye on what the community courts are doing to avoid any other abuse. So I suppose I agree with Rowan Williams, I particularly liked what he said about cultural loyalty and state loyalty being able to coexist.

edit: Although, to be honest, I don't know comprehensively what Sharia law entails, specifically are things like honour killings an intrinsic part of the ideology or just an extremist hijacking of a decent legal system. It feels like I've read and heard so many arguments either way that it's impossible to know what the deal really is, and finding out could potentially change my opinion. I kind of feel that, generally speaking, for religion to exist peacefully in the civilised modern world is has to be neutered to the point of being a shadow of its true self, and it's possible that the only form of Sharia that would could legitimately allow to be practised in the UK would be so weakened as to be effectively meaningless for its practitioners, in which case what's the point?

edit again: Thinking about that, if the UK approves muslim culture in this way, with the prerequisite that it's a meek, controlled, moderate type of islam which operates at the mercy of the state, perhaps that could be a positive step for islam, allowing the religion to develop a strong moderate identity. Because if islam just stays predominantly in the middle east, in nations which have strong historical tendencies towards theocracy, how will it ever reform into a moderate religion as christianity already has? Perhaps Europe being less aggressive towards islam is in everybody's interests in terms of taming islam, showing the repressed victims of extremist islam a new way to live, and so on. If you use the metaphor of taming a wild animal, the middle east largely consists of countries that allow the animal to do what it likes, whereas Europe could be the field where the animal is tamed and taught how to work for humanity rather than against it. I know that's terribly poncy, and probably quite offensive. Sorry.

[Paradigm^]

Damn, I was considering making this thread.

From what I understand, it's possible for two people seeking arbitration to resolve their dispute with any third party they please, so long as both people agree. So we already have Jewish / Islamic / RC (I think?) courts dotted around the country for those who'd rather do it that way.

I don't really see how Rev. Dr. Archbishop. Mr. Sen. Williams MBQQRPTTPTQLZ wants to extend it though. Enumeration time:
1. Change a(ny) part of the British legal system to Sharia. Obviously he's not proposing this, he'd get killed instantly.
2. Say "you're Muslim, and you're Muslim, so off to the Sharia courts you go!" in certain cases. That smacks of telling people how to practise their religion, which probably won't make too many friends either.
3. Leave the option open to those who want it. I don't see how this is any different to the current legal situation though :confused:

Unless he's proposing to give e.g. Sharia divorce courts more power, so that after deciding you're going to get a divorce you don't have to run through the British legal system to get the papers signed. This is a good idea and the logical extension of the agreed arbitration thing I mentioned at the beginning of this post.

I can see how "Sharia" makes people think "OMG CHOPPING OFF OPPOSITE HANDS AND FEET", but the key to fixing that is ejummakayshun.

[gembird]

I'm not going to comment too much as I had my big rant in the last thread about Sharia law. However I will say that I think a Sharia divorce court is a good idea- it's limited both in power and in the services it can provide, so is unlikely to get out of hand.

[BlueIncaPilot]

I believe quite firmly in when in Rome do as the Romans do. Its quite alright for people to worship whatever they feel like over here as long as no one expects the way of our country to change for them. This is quite short and sweet but that really does sum up what I think about it.

[Paradigm^]

I believe quite firmly in when in Rome do as the Romans do. Its quite alright for people to worship whatever they feel like over here as long as no one expects the way of our country to change for them. This is quite short and sweet but that really does sum up what I think about it.
You've completely missed the point (I think). Nobody's suggested we'll put the entire country under any aspect of Sharia law, just that we could give Muslims the option of settling their differences in their own way if they like. Does that still sound like a bad idea to you? If so, why?

[Midget]

could break down the barrier so to speak, and lead to more and more changes?

not necessarily my opinion though, just throwing it in there for arguments sake

[Bisyss]

I suppose my opinions are still the same as they were in that thread, I'm generally in favour of something like community courts as long as they're voluntary and exist in cooperation with statutory law rather than being a distinct alternative to it. Which is to say, for example, that people shouldn't be able to subscribe to a community court to avoid a harsher punishment from the national justice system, and that generally the state would have to keep an eye on what the community courts are doing to avoid any other abuse. So I suppose I agree with Rowan Williams, I particularly liked what he said about cultural loyalty and state loyalty being able to coexist.I was going to post something like this, but Splush said better than I could. I would like to add that the way this was reported by some papers was absolutely disgusting. Mister Qwerty mentioned that The Sun were calling for Williams' resignation - they also seem to think that introducing limited aspects of Sharia law = ZOMG THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. The picture of the woman in the burkha they used was completely uncalled for as well.

[Turkey Sandwich]

We already have Sharia courts operating in the UK, quite legally and voluntarily, same as we have, for example, Hebrew courts. I don't see what's wrong with that system.

The problem I have with the Archbishop is that it doesn't seem like he thought it through. Either he doesn't realise the above fact, which I doubt, or he's suggesting expanding and officialising the system, which is probably not a good idea. That's because the only way they could be more recognised than they already are is by allowing them to be used instead of UK law courts, rather than 'as well'. I don't see why we should, for example, allow Sharia courts to grant divorces without having to have them ratified by the standard legal system. We don't do that for other religions, so why Islam?

Even if we said that we'd allow all religions to do that, I think it's a bad idea. You can't have legal issues dealt with by private institutions, whether they're religions, businesses, or whatever. I mean, since there's no such thing as an 'offical religion', I could start my own and demand that the state allow me to perform legal marriages without going through them. Of course that's an extreme case, but you know what I mean.

[Ozzylator]

Whatever happened to one law for all a nation's people?

[Mr stabby]

I disagree with it. We had a mass debate (hurrr) in Law on Friday and all I heard was a barrage of racist abuse, including "they shouldn't even be allowed to speak urdu, who knows what they could be plotting" which was shocking. So then I argued for Sharia Law, just for arguments sake. But in reality I think that Muslims should respect our legal system and Government. That woman was due for lashings for naming the teddy, and that wouldn't happen under English Law. But they don't have a system of English law their iirc. Sure she got off "lightly" in comparison, but only 'cos of international backlash. I am all for people emigrating here, the more the merrier. But its our house, so if the rule is take your shoes off, you take your shoes off, even if they are spotlessly clean.

However saying that, I could be swayed by a few aspects of Sharia Law. I think the divorce rules are good at not creating adversaries in the process. Just standing there saying "I divorce thee" is much more peaceful than what we have now. So maybe if both parties are happy using Sharia Law, and it doesn't directly oppose English Legislation then it could be brought in.

[Paradigm^]

That woman was due for lashings for naming the teddy, and that wouldn't happen under English Law.It's worth noting that there is no single 'Sharia Law Book' - it's not set down in stone. Sharia Law is essentially "the law as dictated by the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad's teachings", and the interpretation of these differs amongst many Islamic groups. So while there are some who dictate 40 lashes and chopping off opposite hands and feet, there are plenty of other interpretations that are less "eye for an eye".

[faragher]

Whatever happened to one law for all a nation's people?We already don't have that. We have the Beth Din, which is already recognised in law and allowed to rule on issues specifically related to Jewish Law - i.e. Marriage, Granting of kosher licences, questions relating to contracts and how orthodox law applies. They are not allowed to make any decisions about any other areas of law.

Most people who are 'properly' religious (that is, attend church, temple, mosque, synagague etc) will defer to their religious leaders on all matters which they consider moral - and this will include some business matters. This has always happened - and fortunately the religious codes tend to be stricter than the legal codes - not just "don't steal", but "give away some of your income", or "receive no interest on your money" for example. We have seen ways in which religious interest groups and self-proclaimed voices of faith have clashed with law in the past - catholics and gay adoption for example, or attempted applications of the blasphemy law against musicals. More seriously, we still have 26 Lords Spiritual who sit in one of our parlimentary houses - I appreciate that we are nominally a christian country, but I don't think that the Church of England should have such a powerful voice in policy making - especially as they are spectacularly reactionary when it comes to recognising any of the changes in society.

I think what we are looking at here is the adoption of a similar system to the Beth Din - a court whose mandate will be restricted to areas which are only religious, such as marriage and the conduct of certain types of contract. And I can't see the harm in this - it is no concession that has not already been granted to other religious groups.

As for the "creeping change" argument. That way of thinking would have us still banging rocks together and eating raw meat. You cannot prohibit change because the outcome might be bad. You should prohibit chage where the outcome WILL be bad, but I cannot see that this is one of those cases.

[Dbantx]

No, quite simply put its a terrible idea, and yes i will explain why i think this.

Yes there are many different interpretations of Sharia law, but all of the mainstream interpretations involve executions and curtailment of civil liberties. Jewish law is a different kettle of fish, i've never met a Jew who wanted to stick to mosaic law to the extent that were putting people to death for working on the sabbath, Jewish law nowadays mostly involves personal matters of diet and faith. The one Jewish state we have on the planet is secular.

Sharia law encompasses society and all aspects of everyday life, its alright saying we can implement some aspects of Sharia and not others, but its my opinion that the majority of Muslims who want Sharia law want it all. There are already Sharia courts in operation in the UK, they did an interview with one of the judges and he made it abundantly clear that he wanted Britain to accept all aspects of Sharia law.

Wherever a state has accepted parts of Sharia law there have been calls and pressure for it to adopt more aspects of Sharia law, take Pakistan for example, a supposedly secular country, they allowed Islamic Sharia courts to be set up for people who wanted to be governed by Sharia and now you have armed militants hijacking mosques and demanding that its implement everywhere and for everyone. Which is no suprise given that the Koran itself commands the faithful to fight until all the world is for Allah.

If they find aspects of British law on divorce inadequate whats to stop them from then saying we find aspects of British law on other matters to be inadequate. For example, "my son is gay and i want to take him to court but i can't take it before a British court because according to your law its legal, therefore i want to be able to take it before a sharia court, its my culture."

Why should we allow people to practise their religious laws in this country when i Saudi Arabia, a so called pure Islamic state, its illegal to be anything but Muslim upon penalty of death.

Simply put, i believe Sharia law will undermine the legitimacy of British law and everything stands for is the opposite of British liberal democracy.

[Splush]

I suppose the easier-said-than-done answer to what you're saying, Dbantx, is that we'd just have to stay vigilant of what sharia courts are doing, make sure we define exactly what constitutes and abuse of the rights to community courts, and act if such an abuse does take place. If, as you say, the whole project is a trojan horse for radical islamists then presumably we'd discover that soon enough and the state would have to put their foot down.

But what if that radical islamist agenda is a minority, and the majority of people wanting sharia courts are moderates for whom the courts would just be a symbolic token of their commitment to their religion, rather than a move towards an islamic theocracy? Shouldn't we be acting in the interests of these peaceful people, trying to maximise their cultural freedoms, rather than opposing increased freedoms because we're scared of a radical element, and apparently lack the confidence in our ability to prevent their rise to power?

If one had a source of anti-christian fervour to draw from, you could suggest that the Church of England exists as a front for a wicked christian plot to take over the country and create a christian theocracy. Silly as that is, I'm sure there's a tiny element of the christian population of the UK who would rather like that, but denying christians their right to indulge in their cultural traditions on the basis that the radical element among them may use them as a stepping stone to take over the country would be monstrous. I imagine this is the angle Rowan Williams is coming from; religious/cultural freedom is obviously important to him and he feels that it would be unreasonable to deny that freedom to another group while expecting it for his own.

As for the "creeping change" argument. That way of thinking would have us still banging rocks together and eating raw meat. You cannot prohibit change because the outcome might be bad. You should prohibit chage where the outcome WILL be bad, but I cannot see that this is one of those cases.
I totally agree with this, not just for this issue but for most times when "don't try to improve anything, you might make it worse!" is presented as an argument. The implication that civilisation right now is as good as it's going to get is just depressing, and the implication that we as a species are too inept to fix our mistakes if we do make a bad decision is insulting.

I'm sure a lot of people thought abolishing slavery in the US would kick-start some sort of angry black takeover of the country, but in hindsight it was clearly a great step forward for the unity of humanity. As for fears of our inability to reverse a process if it goes badly, I think the prohibition of alcohol in the US is a good example of where a nation made a significant change, saw the negative consequences of that change, and chose to repeal it.

[doctor_fruitbat]

It's worth noting that there is no single 'Sharia Law Book' - it's not set down in stone. Sharia Law is essentially "the law as dictated by the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad's teachings", and the interpretation of these differs amongst many Islamic groups. So while there are some who dictate 40 lashes and chopping off opposite hands and feet, there are plenty of other interpretations that are less "eye for an eye".
Assuming this is true, I think that this is the most important point; it's hardly pandering to terrorists if the extremist behaviour they want legitimised isn't and never will be. Of course, some could argue that if one interpretation of Sharial law is allowed then all should be, but as long as it is clearly said that any decisions have to conform to British law then extremist interpretations wouldn't even get a foot in the door. And as such, any 'changes' to the current legitimacy of Sharial law in the UK would be symbolic at best, and wouldn't realistically make a whole lot of difference.

[Charming]

Why should we make new laws for certain groups of people? We shouldn't. This kind of thing would never happen in any place other than Britain. Maybe certain aspects like the divorce thing could potentially be useful, but like they say "if you don't want to root for your own team then you should get the hell out of the stadium". Anyone coming over to Britain to live is basically agreeing to become a British citizen and abide by our laws. End of.

[gembird]

Why should we make new laws for certain groups of people? We shouldn't. This kind of thing would never happen in any place other than Britain. Maybe certain aspects like the divorce thing could potentially be useful, but like they say "if you don't want to root for your own team then you should get the hell out of the stadium". Anyone coming over to Britain to live is basically agreeing to become a British citizen and abide by our laws. End of.

Yeah, but that's the point really. Nobody is saying that we have to completely change the law, or let a group of people exist outside the law of the country as a whole. It's just that certain aspects of life are more entwined with religious custom than others. In those cases, why not have a system in place that takes that into account? We've already got something similar in place for the Jewish community and that doesn't cause problems- why should it be any different for the Islamic community? Also, plenty of Muslims have been born here, so any arguments about becoming a British citizen are a bit pointless as a lot of them already are.

But anyway, I don't see the problem in allowing religious groups to deal with marriage and divorce in their own way- marriage is pretty much a religious institution anyway. If the marriage ceremony of a religion is recognised as being legal, I think the divorce ceremony should be too, but only if both parties are willing for the religious community rather than the secular law to deal with the issue.

[katt]

There are two reasons for these courts to exist

1. To actually wield a lot of power and act separately from british law.

2. To be a symbolic organization (that also happens to be a political power play)

No one here seems to think scenario 1 is a good idea.

As far as scenario 2 people frequently mention 'marraige and divorce'.

And I would say that marriage and divorce are simple enough under the pre-existing laws. Either you get married or you get divorced. Why do islamic people need a whole set of 'sharia courts' that have to be monitored to tamper with a no-brainer?

Do they only grant islamic people the right to divorce when the islamic court feels like it or something? THAT would be illegal under british law because people are free to marry or divorce whoever they want.

Therefore, these courts are useless and superfluous except in the case of providing religious counsel to islamic subjects. and providing advice does not a court make. a court, by its nature, has power to make binding decisions.

The fact they need to call it a court shows it is a power play in my eyes.

I think the courts are a way to make a political statement honestly (ie 'we are taking our sharia law with us to your land and although its power is minimal now we would latch on to any opportunity to increase it. thanks for being so naive')

[gembird]

Do they only grant islamic people the right to divorce when the islamic court feels like it or something? THAT would be illegal under british law because people are free to marry or divorce whoever they want.

Not exactly, I'm pretty sure you have to have a reason for wanting to get divorced. Obviously nobody can prove what you're saying is definitely true, but I think for things like 'irreconcilable differences' it has to be obvious that you've split up and haven't spoken or something similar.

I think the courts are a way to make a political statement honestly (ie 'we are taking our sharia law with us to your land and although its power is minimal now we would latch on to any opportunity to increase it. thanks for being so naive')

We already have a similar system in place for Jewish people, and that hasn't caused a problem. Do you honestly think that Muslims are that much more fundamentalist and/or power hungry that it'll cause a massive problem in what is essentially the same situation? Fair enough if you don't agree with any kind of religious law being implemented even at grass-roots level, but it seems to me like you're just making another post about how the Muslims want to take over the world.

[katt]

We already have a similar system in place for Jewish people, and that hasn't caused a problem. Do you honestly think that Muslims are that much more fundamentalist and/or power hungry that it'll cause a massive problem in what is essentially the same situation? Fair enough if you don't agree with any kind of religious law being implemented even at grass-roots level, but it seems to me like you're just making another post about how the Muslims want to take over the world.

How long as the jewish system been in place for? I think both would be superfluous.

islam is a powerful religion with devoted adherents. I'd say it is more dangerous than judaism/christianity/hinduism/whatever at the moment. and there ARE muslims in britain who boldly proclaim that they want to take over. a minority yes but they are still out there and have the ability to gather followers among the uneducated and poor (perhaps a court system would provide the power base needed?). if there is any doubt as to this danger of religious fanaticism remember the teddy bear woman who almost lost her life for naming a stuffed toy mohammed. or the two skyscrapers that fell in NYC

dont forget the sharia law poll where a majority of islamic people wanted sharia law in the UK.

i never said that all muslims want to 'take over the world'. use what i wrote in the post don't make up garbage to try and put words in my mouth

[doctor_fruitbat]

dont forget the sharia law poll where a majority of islamic people wanted sharia law in the UK.
No shit, it's what they believe in. :p Peace lovers or otherwise.

You may be reading too much into this. Sharia law would never, ever be allowed to overrule basic British law, and as such won't have any real power; the power is always there to take it away again if, for whatever reason, it became some sort of threat (though I can't see that happening). As I said earlier, the extremists who want to hand out beatings and executions simply won't have the authority or legitimacy to do so, which they would learn very quickly if they tried to enforce their own brand of justice and were promptly tried as criminal vigilantes. And while still being mostly symbolic, sometimes that is enough to make people happy, the fact that their beliefs are being acknowledged even if they aren't fully implemented.

[katt]

No shit, it's what they believe in. :p Peace lovers or otherwise.

.

Well its one thing to believe in islam and another to want sharia to be the existing legal system.

I'd not want 'baptist law' coming into competition with the actual legal system of the united states and i am a christian

[gembird]

How long as the jewish system been in place for? I think both would be superfluous.

islam is a powerful religion with devoted adherents. I'd say it is more dangerous than judaism/christianity/hinduism/whatever at the moment. and there ARE muslims in britain who boldly proclaim that they want to take over. a minority yes but they are still out there and have the ability to gather followers among the uneducated and poor (perhaps a court system would provide the power base needed?). if there is any doubt as to this danger of religious fanaticism remember the teddy bear woman who almost lost her life for naming a stuffed toy mohammed. or the two skyscrapers that fell in NYC

dont forget the sharia law poll where a majority of islamic people wanted sharia law in the UK.

i never said that all muslims want to 'take over the world'. use what i wrote in the post don't make up garbage to try and put words in my mouth

No, you didn't say it, but you implied it, as you have done before and no doubt will again. You're entitled to your opinions, and fair play to you, you state them without worrying what others will think. But your constant assertions in every religion-related debate thread that Muslims are a lot more dangerous than we think are actually unfair, at least in my eyes. I don't like any religion at all- I think there is the potential for dangerous behaviour from any of them. But I don't pick out one particular group and say that they're the worst just because of recent events. Yes, they may be going through a stage now where their fundamentalists are more well-known than others, but that definitely does not mean that a small, highly controlled change in the law will cause the entire Islamic population of Britain to demand a lot of power- I should think that a small achievement like this will be more than enough for anyone who has a realistic view of the world.

And if we're going to go down the religious fanaticism route, may I just point out that people don't need religion for that kind of mob behaviour and extreme thinking- very often it's politics that are involved as much as religion.

TL;DR: Yes, some Muslims are dangerous and power hungry, but so are other people- some of whom aren't even religious at all.

[katt]

No, you didn't say it, but you implied it, as you have done before and no doubt will again. .

I implied that the extremist element could use things like these courts to their advantage. I never in that post ONCE implied that every muslim on the earth wants 'to take over the world'. I am talking about faux courts being set up in britain without need or reason.

What are you talking about? I'm not sure you know.

If you go back and read my first post in this thread you will see that is the case. No one actually really even bothered fully addressing the argument i brought up in the first post. Just a load of silly waffle.

which is why i am leaving this thread. bai!!!

[Pilk Man]

Unecessary, IMO.

You want to live in the UK (immigrant or not), you obey UK law. Don't like it? Get out.

[Paradigm^]

and there ARE muslims in britain who boldly proclaim that they want to take over. a minority yes but they are still out there and have the ability to gather followers among the uneducated and poorThere are also people who say the world is flat, that the earth is only 4000 years old, that the planet is ruled by evil Freemason space lizards. All are a minority and all are capable of gathering a following in the literal sense of the word; whether they will or not is down to education and the decisions which ordinary people make. Ideally, if enough people make the same decision, it becomes law: democracy in action.

Do they only grant islamic people the right to divorce when the islamic court feels like it or something? THAT would be illegal under british law because people are free to marry or divorce whoever they want.Hence the idea to change the law. Laws, once made, aren't set in stone: they change and adapt with society. If they didn't, we'd still be executing faggots and the darkies would still be working in the cotton fields. Why change the law though? Let's look to the ECHR (I'm sure the US Constitution has a similar legislation - First Amendment, methinks?):
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion...to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance...subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.I would argue that adhering to Sharia law is, for some Muslims, part of their right to "manifest his religion or belief". Given that two people must agree to be judged by a proposed Sharia court for the judgement to be deemed legally binding, I don't see how giving said court the power to declare people married or divorced would impinge upon public order, health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.

I implied that the extremist element could use things like these courts to their advantage.How, exactly? In theory, you are quite correct here, although I can't think of any specific cases; however, anyone can use any legal system to their advantage - the current UK one, the US one, or otherwise. There are always loopholes and they are inevitably exploited. However, as I mentioned earlier in this post (and Splush before me), the "don't change things, it might get worse" attitude leads to the stagnation of society and a swift visit from the League of Shadows. Which I think we'd rather avoid if at all possible: they tend to do funny things to the pipes.

[faragher]

Just to add fat to the fire, I'd like to mention something:

One of the reasons that many Muslims are keen to have a sharia legal system for certain areas is that in certain areas Sharia law is, well, better...

UK law is combatative - at the end, you have someone who is right and someone who is wrong. The right person gets compensated by the wrong person. The end. Yes, we have the idea of culpability on behalf of the wronged (if you hadn't done X, the results of Y wouldn't have been so bad), but you still basically have a winner and a loser.

Anyone who has been involved in a divorce, or in a dispute over business knows that the world is rarely this black and white. Sharia law allows for the shades of grey in these situations - it allows for both sides to be wrong, or both sides to be right, and the judgement to be made accordingly. It allows for much simpler and more equitable solutions to these kind of problems. So there you go.

And the next person that says "if you come to our country you should follow our laws" - read the posts that mention the Beth Din - we already have seperate courts for certain religious groups - why should it be any different for Islam?

/edit

katt - Sharia rules for divorce are much simpler than the British ones. In Sharia law you do not need the permission of the court, you just need its recognition that the relevant steps have been taken. Its the British legal system that requires (in theory) that you get permission - though in practice they will never deny it. Oh, and you do know that various Christian denominations will excommunicate (or equivalent) a person for divorcing. And that the Catholic Church still won't marry divorcees in the UK? It doesn't look like Islam is the harsh one on this issue...

[Giant_Crab]

My opinion, for what its worth, is that it's only logical that a legal system should represent the sizable portions of the population its related to, within logical boundaries. This instantly nullifies any argument saying 'live by the law system in place and don't attempt to change it' because the law is modified constantly due to current or perceived future events. With an increasing Muslim population in Britain, it's surely only sensible that they gain more representation in the legal system here, but obviously within limits. Just as if Britain suddenly became born-again Christian I wouldn't be happy with our law system being over-run by God-fearing moralising, I wouldn't be happy with the current system of law being swamped by law based on beliefs and practices not relevant or practicable to or by the majority of the country.

I DO however, have no problem with the current law system being essentially based, at however much of a removal, with Christian law, as it has been modified to an extent that the only real evidence of its origins lie in the most logical elements of the original foundations, whilst the rest has been eradicated in favour of more relevant and useful rules. The opinion that the same could not be done with regards to Sharia intigration is based on nothing but vanity, fear and, ultimately, bigotry.

[Pie hunter D]

What a huge melting pot!
The simple fact is, like it or not, Britain is becoming something that just isn't britain anymore due to the PC crowd fucking it up for everyone else :fact:.
Imigrants etc are let into britain to escape w/e it is they're supposed to be escaping, much like you would let a friend stay at your house if they were in a spot of bother at home.
Would you let them dictate the rules in your house? I seriously doubt it. They're there as guests, they're treated with all due respect and kindness, but rules are rules.

It really is simple logic.

[Giant_Crab]

If said friend started paying rent, you'd let them have a say on house rules. It's an analogue I say.

[Pie hunter D]

Good point.
But then it's down to statistics. How much are we paying out to imigrants compared to how much they are paying in?
It's a 2 way street. Unfortunately I don't have these stats to comment further/

[Giant_Crab]

Yeah I'm not exactly Mr. Stats myself, but the last I heard, immigrant workers brought three billion quid into the country in 2006. Either way this is a bit off topic. In reality this is an issue of principle, not economics.

[Paradigm^]

<PHD> How much are we paying out to imigrants compared to how much they are paying in?
<GC> the last I heard, immigrant workers brought three billion quid into the country in 2006.

The urge is too great for me to resist: OWNED.

[Pie hunter D]

Ah but do you have any idea how much we're paying out. I can pretty much guarantee you it's not a small number. This is owed to the fact that things like benifits, housing, maintenance etc all add up. Combined statistics as opposed to a single tax stat.
The ethics factor would refer to my original post. The economical factor was brought in in Crabs' post. I merely responded accordingly :p

[Giant_Crab]

Truth, and I must admit I've absolutely no clue what the public cost of immigration is, or even if it's calculable.

[Paradigm^]

I don't have the stats either but I can pretty much guarantee you that the amount we're paying out is far less than what we're receiving. If the situation was otherwise we'd be locking down the borders pretty damn sharpish. Immigration pretty much saves this country's economy: the "immigrants are stealing our jobs" argument is a myth. Immigrants do the jobs that you and I and the chavs that get their giro from the Post Office every week wouldn't be seen dead doing. Yes, there are immigrants who live off taxpayers' money, but in general I'd wager that the amount we needlessly spend on immigrant spongers is far less than the amount we needlessly spend on UK spongers.

However this seems to have been turned into a thread about immigration, which I'm sure has been done before.

[Giant_Crab]

Total agreement with that whole post, I'm 100% sure that UK spongers are more of a burden. I'd add a comment about Sharia law to get the thread back on track but I've more or less said what I think. Representative law system and such. Apart from in America, which has a significant number in it's population supporting its death penalty, which is beyond barbaric. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!

[Pie hunter D]

I don't have the stats either but I can pretty much guarantee you that the amount we're paying out is far less than what we're receiving. If the situation was otherwise we'd be locking down the borders pretty damn sharpish. Immigration pretty much saves this country's economy: the "immigrants are stealing our jobs" argument is a myth. Immigrants do the jobs that you and I and the chavs that get their giro from the Post Office every week wouldn't be seen dead doing. Yes, there are immigrants who live off taxpayers' money, but in general I'd wager that the amount we needlessly spend on immigrant spongers is far less than the amount we needlessly spend on UK spongers.

However this seems to have been turned into a thread about immigration, which I'm sure has been done before.

It's common knowlage the imigrants do all these jobs. There are just many other factors that can't be argued solidly without the facts. There has been a lot of movement in parliment to close the borders actually due to some of the problems. However, I digress. This isn't the topic at hand. You're right it's been done before i'm sure.

Representative law system and such. Apart from in America, which has a significant number in it's population supporting its death penalty, which is beyond barbaric. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!

ed* Which is a good point.
Do you think the motion would be forced or carried to reopen the argument about the death penalty? Maybe not now but given time it could be a real possibility that Britan may assimilate many more laws into it's system. Who draws the line and how far does it go?

[gembird]

I'd just like to point out again that the issue of Sharia law in Britain is probably more important to Muslims who are British citizens. It's their country as well after all. I think people tend to think of the Islamic population of the UK as being immigrants, but I'm sure that isn't completely true- especially for the younger Muslims. There are plenty of people at my uni (and at other universities of course) who are Muslim and were born in the UK. They've spent their whole lives here, so they understand Britain as much as any other young person and perhaps would like to be represented, if only symbolically.

[Paradigm^]

Indeed - this is what Rowan Williams meant when he was talking about the clash between cultural and religious loyalty.

[faragher]

What a huge melting pot!
The simple fact is, like it or not, Britain is becoming something that just isn't britain anymore due to the PC crowd fucking it up for everyone else :fact:.
:notfact:

Sorry, but I couldn't let it pass

[Lawrence]

Every religion should have to obey the same laws. Wait, no. I just made a religion. We're gonna start obeying OUR laws instead of everyone elses. In my religion, you're allowed to kill people just because they smell funny. Now that it's part of my religious beliefs, i'll use the whole "freedom of religion" to stop you lot from making me obey YOUR laws. Aha! And, I don't even live in your country. But I'm gonna move there and complain.

[doctor_fruitbat]

Did you just not read any of the previous posts? Sharia law in Britain, as is practised now, OBEYS BRITISH LAW. Even British law has interpretation, which is why we have judges. The only thing that might reasonably change is that Sharia courts would become a legitimate arm of the British legal system, meaning they wouldn't need to arbitrarily ask permission for their decisions to be ratified. On top of that, they would be subject to the same checks and appeals as any other court, and certainly wouldn't be allowed to circumnavigate the law.

[Splush]

I saw a segment on the news about this topic last week, they were going around a sharia court interviewing various punters and the people involved with running it. It seemed distinctly like the court was really just a advice/information centre rather than an actual court, which just made me confused. There seems to be so much conflicting information about sharia courts that I just don't know what to think now.

[Loogie]

BUMP

didn't want to start a new topic, seeing as this was already here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

the times is telling us what we already know, except the last few paragraphs is something i hadn't heard before

women getting half of what the men get on inheritance and domestic abuse going essentially ignored warrants a big fat:/

i've been reading about this sharia law and it seems pretty...well, to put it delicately, shit

i don't think it'll get fully implemented here, somehow i doubt that people would be too impressed with stoning gays and cutting thieves limbs off

but the stuff they're doing already made me rage

at the risk of sounding like a daily mail reader, the fact that nobody has said anything about this is "political correctness gone mad"

the bnp will be getting a lot of support now (this is a bad thing) and it'll be the sikhs and the hindus and the black people and the muslims who can keep their religion to themselves that'll suffer for it

(and for the record, i don't support the jewish courts either; religion should allow nobody to be above the law as i'm not a big fan of people dodging justice on the grounds that they believe in fairies)

[Smokey]

I believe the idea was to introduce Sharia Law into muslim communites to settle minor disputes. Anything serious would be dealt with by the criminal courts as normal.

I agree in principle with small community courts dealing with small cases but I don't believe religion should have any place in government and law at all. Courts are places for truth and justice and religion has a habit of ignoring facts.

[Darkscull]

religion has a habit of ignoring facts.

to be fair, people in general have a habit of ignoring facts.

especially governments.

only fundamental benefit of our government over a theocracy is that it's elected.

I agree about religion being kept out of courts, but not for reasons that apply to community courts, which are voluntary affairs IIRC.

[Smokey]

I wasn't saying religion should be allowed into community courts, I was simply suggesting that a small community court may be a good idea. Religion should be left out of all manners of government. Appologies if I misunderstood you.