Comments on Sharia and Sharia-Like

Jesus Christ, this guy is off the deep end. Is he trying to be uber-PC or something? I can't even begin to understand this...

Yup,

this is yet another case of liberal moral relativism and multiculturalism gone astray.

Separation of Church and State seems like a likely solution. If there is anything left to export of our democratic model...

Ecce, don't forget that "liberal moral relativism" got you that studio apartment in Auburn and those free dentures, and gives you enough spending money to keep you in soup and chippendale posters.

What's the Sharia penalty for molesting boys?

It should be noted that the British allow orthadox jews to employ jewish law in the resolution of civil disputes. What's the difference?

Oh, right...all Muslims are bigoted asshole terrorists.

@6, They probably should not be doing that either.

@7 the problem is not Muslims its their religion. scratch that all religion. Faith is not a way toward truth or anything of real substance.

This is going to sound sarcastic, but it's really not meant to be... I honestly want to know.

Does orthodox jewish law that's allowed in Britain including stonings and hangings? For that matter, does is include any gross human rights violations?

I'm not a fan of any religion but that's not what he means by Sharia law. He's talking about Muslims being allowed to use religious laws for certain civil (not criminal) situations like marriage, financial disputes between Muslims, etc.

Keep in mind that Jews already have similar rights in many countries (including the UK) so if we're going to be consistent we should either let them both have their special religious laws or get rid of them all together (my vote).

You might check the much more detailed report on the BBC. With solid reporting detail, the proposal sounds sensible, and of course has brought bigots out of the woodwork. That's the nice thing about Williams' work over the years: he likes to poke at people who believe their prejudices aren't hurting anyone.

Um, "adopting aspects of Sharia law" isn't the same thing as "cohering with barbaric, sexist, homophobic religious bigots." The Bishop alluded to divorce proceedings and financial transactions.

Most US banks selling financial products in the Middle East already accommodate Sharia (banks don't charge "interest" on mortgages, for instance, but collect a share of appreciation in a "profit-sharing" relationship).

I agree the comments weren't helpful, but I hardly find them scandalous.

I've always been a fan of moral relativism & multiculturalism but Europe is going to make me a right-wing caveman. From BBC, "marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children" Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain. I'm not sure if he's the same person who was interviewed on the BBC radio this evening who defended a tradition of awarding twice the inheritance to male descendants. I guess you can do that if you write it in your will but there should only be one law.

If your religion wants to weigh in on divorce & marriage do it the way that Catholics do here. I mean I hear about people getting annulments, the church can do whatever it likes with the religious law but we share one civil law.

It does say they aren't talking about adopting criminal sharia law.

I don't see why the British legal system has to be involved at all, though. If two people want to settle a dispute by following Sharia, they can both do that on their own. If one of them doesn't want to, they shouldn't be forced to.

Daniel -

When you say we share one civil law I think what you mean is "one civil law that just happens to be highly influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and therefore only applies to hetrosexuals". A not very civil civil law that I'm call quasi-religious.

Hopefully you realized my second comment was sarcasm. People need to read the article. But the question remains, if religious law within the British legal system is good for one group of extremists, why not another??

Ah, yet again, voices inside some ancient desert wanderers' heads rule us millenia later.

"Religion poisons everything." --Hitchens

Dan obviously buys into the monolithic image of Islamic culture the mainstream media feeds him. In that respect, he has a lot in common with the simple-minded caricatures of human beings he's criticizing.

This is sensational reporting RTFA. BBC has a better article. He is not advocating for atavistic aspects of sharia.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court."

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

This is definitley not on my list of top 10000 things that need to be done in UK, but lets not misrepresent what he said

Mrobvious, for what it's worth I'm in favor of gay marriage. Actually what you say is not what I meant at all. I meant that there should be one civil law, not that it must be the particular one we have now. It can still change & evolve for the better, or for the worse for that matter.

What the fuck are you talking about JME? Fuck you. I've had a enlightening experiences in my life & one thing I've picked up is that when you say "obviously" you're probably wrong. It's not obvious at all how we can't manage with a single set of laws for all people.

I'm holding my breath for the inevitable acceptance of Satanic law for us Dark Lord followers.

I was referring to Dan Savage's original post, Daniel. Not your responses (even if you're the same Dan). I stand by my use of "obviously." Cheers.

So according to the BBC article the Beth Din in London handles "contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes". It seems from their web site that they arbitrate by the consent of the participants, which seems fair.

Of course there are good paternalistic arguments for not submitting divorce to arbitration. I'm all in favor of consenting adults doing what they will but we have limits on your ability to negotiate away your core liberty.

JME: well sometimes you're an idiot even if you don't use the word obviously, obviously. I'm going to stop commenting on Dan's articles, this is not the first time this has happened. Doh.

IOTW sorry for saying fuck yo.

Sharia != stoning rape victims and beheading homosexuals.

Your inability to distinguish between the varieties of religious and cultural experience -- nay, your eagerness to conflate them all in one big evil Other -- says more about your intellectual stone wall than it does about the objects of your rage.

By refusing to distinguish between the broadest cartoons of Islam you can find, you're actually hurting your cause. Islamic countries and Islamic communities in Western countries are in fact struggling to come to terms with freedom and its implications. Your culture did too, not that long ago. Forceful, reasoned arguments persuade people to think differently; "move to Saudi Arabia" just persuades questioning Muslims that the West is in fact hateful, hostile, and in need of destruction.

Here's a hint: Saudi Arabia practices one kind of Islam. One kind.

Obvious answer #1: Parties who want disputes arbitrated according to any reasonably fair set of rules (potentially including sharia sans stoning) can already enter into voluntary, binding arbitration agreements, both before and after disputes arise.

Obvious answer #2: Making it easier to enforce repressive religious social codes in civil settings will make it harder for the marginalized members of those communities (i.e., women) to seek other forms of dispute resolution without ostracism or worse.

In other words, a Muslim woman who is now "forced" to go through secular courts in a divorce, and who can't/doesn't want to leave her Islamic community altogether will not practically have the option of secular adjudication if a sharia option is written into law.

A -

That's not true, no one is forced to use the religious courts. Certainly if someone wants the divorce recognized in the eyes of the religious Islamic community they would need to, but a civil divorce would still be available under those conditions.

mrobvious -

That's naive. A woman whose husband wants to use an Islamic court now can say to him and to her community that she is forced to use the secular courts because they are the only available option. If a sharia court becomes an available option, she will either have to either a) use the sharia court or b) take a stand against the norms of her community, becoming a pariah in the process.

No one is forced to use the courts in the same way that no one is forced to stay within their communities, but a Muslim woman unwilling to altogether give up her community will be completely at the mercy of such sharia courts.

are Dan and Michael Savage the same people?

A -

Read my earlier comment, I'm not in favor of special religious courts. But I don't believe it's reasonable to offer these to one religious community (Orthodox Jews) but not another (Muslims).

As a matter of fact the Islamic community is already using Sharia law on an informal basis, so the problem you're describing already exists.

Well, if anybody ever thought Dan Savage was a profound thinker or capable of intellectual complexity, this posting of his ought to set them straight once and for all.

The Stranger prefers a pluralistic society where everyone who edits a newspaper can misrepresent the facts call that news?

According to The Guardian: The Archbishop of Canterbury "did not endorse, however, the "kind of inhumanity" that was associated with sharia law in some Islamic states."

@1. No wonder you can't begin to understand this. There's a debate happening over in England about the speech, but it's not a debate about imaginary news.

Re: It should be noted that the British allow orthadox jews to employ jewish law in the resolution of civil disputes. What's the difference?

The difference is that the jewish laws are not at complete odds with british common law - shariah laws on divorce or inheritance on the other hand (which these UK people are calling for), have severely unequal rights for men/women

Islam in Europe has a simple solution: if you don't like 'em, out breed 'em.

"Oh, right...all Muslims are bigoted asshole terrorists."

Sorry to say this, but that statement is not that far off. They may not all be bigoted asshole terrorists, but few are really all that bothered by the bigoted asshole terrorists in their midst.

This is a fairly devastating guest editorial piece from the NY Times explaining this, written by a Dutch Muslim:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07ali.html?em&ex=1197176400&en=502be5fe35e42092&ei=5087%0A

@33: have you ever studied Orthodox Jewish divorce proceedings--namely, the necessity of getting a "get," in the absence of which there is such a thing as a "chained woman?" Yeah, Orthodox Jewish legal proceedings can have pretty unequal rights for men and women as well.

However, the precedent among all Jewish communities is that "the law of the land is the law"--if the British ended these special Orthodox Jewish laws (do they have special courts, too? I'm unsure) then the Jews in the UK should have no problem turning to secular British courts for resolution of legal problems. Sure, they'll probably gripe about it, but there's plenty of precedent within their own, religious legal system about living within a secular legal system. Part of growing up through history as a subject people.

Another difference between Jewish "laws" and Sharia would be the question of who is interpreting the law. I could be wrong but there seems to be more hierarchy built into the Muslim religion whereas as the saying goes "2 Jews, 3 opinions". Further, drawing a line between barbaric practices and non barbaric practices is problematic since it puts the government in the position of judge, separating what is bad from what is good in the religion. This judgment is likely to objectionable to adherents who are likely to feel is a unified body of religious doctrine. Worse, such adherents are likely to feel emboldened and fight for more and more inclusions of sharia, much the way anti-abortion groups in this country try to chip away at the pro-choice laws bit by bit. This is a dangerous way to go. Better to keep all religious activities (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zen etc) separate from the law. As Mike Nesmith once said "and the same goes for Christmas".

I'm choosing to interpret this post as provocative, scathing satire; otherwise I may have to shower after visiting this blog from now on.

The reaction to this story is interesting. If you actually read one of the relevant articles, the examples that Rowan Williams gives are having the option to settle marital or financial disputes in a sharia court. And yet if you go read The Corner this morning, where Derb and Co are unsurprisingly in a blather, it sounds as if Britons are going to be subjected to sharia law in the near future. Of course, these are the same people who believe that we need to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan because if we don't we'll be speaking Arabic and wearing headscarves six months down the road.

Look, I don't think the idea of introducing sharia courts in Britain is a good thing, but try to be level-headed when discussing the issue.

look, if dan savage didn't have such a razor-sharp, discerning mind and a deep abiding love of western values and human rights, he never would've supported the Glorious Liberation of Iraqi gays and women...

Re: "gives are having the option to settle marital or financial disputes in a sharia court. "

Only, for the muslim women, it won't really be an "option" at all. Unless by option you mean severely pressured by the muslim community to take their issue to the muslim courts instead of the godless secular ones or risk being a social pariah.

Williams is deeply committed to the idea that religious belief should have a significant, controlling role in society - he is the Archbishop of the official church of England. At least he has the consistency to also suggest that the society-controlling beliefs of muslims should also have the force of law. Williams cannot acknowledge that, given time, the muslim immigrants will become less pervasively religious and see the problem with Sharia law on their own because it would mean admitting that as cultures become more modern and liberal they become less religious. It would be like a cigarette spokesman acknowledging that as people become more health-conscious they smoke less. Instead he wants to act as if orthodox religion is somehow a permanent fixture of society that we should just get used to and enshrine in law. His own church is, after all.