Granted, of course, that what you’re saying is correct, but it seems a little problematic to me nevertheless, because there’s already existing English law that’s applicable to everyone, and so by adopting principles of Sharia law for Muslims, you’re saying that different groups of people shall be subject to different laws, and not treating everyone equally under the law.
I’m certain that this isn’t the Archbishop’s intention, but I fear that it will be the result, nevertheless…that instead of helping English Muslims assimilate into England and adopt English values and English culture, it will instead segregate them even further and seperate them from the mainstream culture.
My question: the UK offers its citizens considerable freedoms. Why do Muslims want to tie themselves to a legal system (Sharia) that strips them of many rights?
The British would be wise to reject this-if Sharia is allowed, it will simply ghettoize their muslim immigrants. :smack:
Agreed, and Williams does address this concern. As I say, he doesn’t have any easy answers regarding the rethinking of a single Law’s primacy, but he does make some interesting points regarding the possible difference between having a right, and necessarily exercising it. And again, this is all volitional; there’s no real question of anyone gaining a material advantage by access to a supplementary jurisdiction. After all, if any one party in a civil dispute were gaining an advantage by going to a Sharia mediation service, the other would necessarily be disadvantaged and would merely have to insist on the regular courts.
I don’t know that I agree. Presuming no-one is forced into one choice or another, then there’s no real divisiveness; it’s simply giving people the option to choose to resolve issues in the manner which seems natural to them. What bothers me here is the assumption that unity is born of interaction with the state. I don’t see that any genuine sense of society comes from everyone going through the same divorce proceedings and suchlike; rather, I believe that it’s mundane everyday interactions that foster a sense of community over and above our immediate friends and neighbours.
As such, I feel that the state can only impede cohesion in this sense, by disaffecting communities who feel that their needs are not being catered to. It takes nothing away from me to give Muslims the opportunity to resolve certain disputes in the manner that they see fit, and it might make a lot of them happier. So why not do it? Certainly, misrepresentation will abound (one need look no further than the OP for the sort of analysis that is common before opinions are proffered), but again I think taking this into account would be a capitulation to idiocy, just as Ludovic’s fears of extremist demands represent a failure to back our own intellect and strength.
They would not be tying themselves to it; they would be choosing of their own volition. As Dr Williams says, there is an interesting debate to be had regarding the difference between the possession of a right, and the exercise thereof. No, I wouldn’t choose to subsume my rights to any faith, since I have none, but why should I assume everyone else feels similarly?
To take a generic example, I might choose to argue that women who stay home as housewives are failing to sufficiently exercise their established rights of equality with men; why are they not fully utilising their right to an unimpeded career? But this is surely their choice; who am I to say that they are failing to live up to my ideal of what a woman should be, any more than a chauvinist has any right to say that women should not get top jobs in industry? Rights provide freedom, not obligation.
Is it really our job as a society to protect people from making choices we can’t understand? From coercion, certainly; but from themselves? From their beliefs?
I think that this is actually a rather clever idea on the part of the Archbishop, one that unfortunately hasn’t been given the consideration it truly deserves. What he’s attempted, imo, is to open a dialogue with a group that sees itself as being victimised by the majority and that that has bred in some quarters extremists (as seen in the 7/7/05 attacks etc). By opening a dialogue, showing that there are people who actually want to listen and rationally consider some of the concerns of the minority you take away a lot of the influence of the extremists.
It seems to have worked in Northern Ireland quite well. As soon as talks were seen to be more than just one-way demands the more reasonable majority of the disaffected minority took away the power of the extremely small faction of extremists, and eventually there was peace (and hopefully a lasting one). It took some not insignificant concessions from all sides to achieve, but it seems we have achieved through talking what 30 years of violence couldn’t.
Now I’m no expert on Northern Ireland and it’s people or issues, nor on Muslims and their issues, but starting a dialogue, and someone has to get the ball rolling, can only really be a good thing.
Ofcourse, you coult try 30 years of random violence first… but I’d rather not.
Ah, the never-stilled cry of “Islamophobe!” on the SDMB. Do you actually deny that under some forms of Sharia (because there are many…) that women can be put to death for adultery?
You might notice I quoted only hard, neocon, hate-group sources like the BBC, Amnesty International, Religious Tolerance, and the Democratic Underground. See also what your own European Court on Human Rights has to say about Sharia law in general and how acceptable it is in your own Community.
Precisely. It’s really quite disheartening, the degree to which his entirely moderate thoughts have been caricatured in the press at large - even the BBC sums up his entire argument with the headline:
Quality reporting there, guys. Certainly no misinterpretation possible from that headline, oh no.
I might be missing something, but what is the connection between those links and what Rowan Williams said? How does suggesting that Islamic divorce might become recognised under English law make everything in those links relevant?
As you yourself suggest, Una Persson, talking about Sharia law ‘in general’ is a bad idea’. But who suggested that as a topic, anyway?
Jesus, Una, I’d have expected you of all people to actually pay attention to the context of the discussion before weighing in on it. No one is denying that many forms of Sharia are breathtakingly inhumane. But we’re talking about the forms of Sharia that the Archbishop of Canterbury is suggesting be adopted in the UK, and I rather doubt that Rowan fucking Williams is advocating the stoning of adulterers.
Did he even imply that he did? The objection, in case you hadn’t noticed, is to the utterly bankrupt assumption that moderate Muslims in a secular society like the UK are positively clamouring for such measures, or that they want to be able to divorce their wives at will, or any such bollocks. Even you yourself acknowledge the myriad variations of Sharia around the world. Why, then, do you defend those leaping for the worst possible interpretation in response to suggestions of mild concessions to Sharia mediation in civil (not penal) cases? Is there any suggestion that measures such as Jodi’s facile and unjustified caricature are under consideration?
Jodi has done exactly as our benighted friend chowder did; read the word “Sharia”, made the worst possible association, and engaged the mouth clutch without even the slightest consideration for what has actually been suggested. And you too would have noticed, had you read either this thread or the Archbishop’s words, that no-one is denying the existence of highly unpleasant, even nauseating interpretations of “Sharia” around the world. Why you appear to be insisting that the good can’t be distinguished from the bad is beyond me, however.
As for your reference to the ECHR, I assume you are talking about their decision that Turkey’s desire to base an entire legal system on Sharia would be incompatible with EU ideals. I sincerely hope I don’t have to explain why this is different to the limited adoption of volitional measures within circumscribed parts of civil law. Like Miller, I’m pretty surprised that you’re completely ignoring the basis of this discussion in favour of defending people who are reaching for the first stereotype that comes to mind. It’s rather underwhelming, given your demonstrated intellect.
For any Brits (such as myself) the response to Williams’ remarks has been at least a little amusing, in the sense that it has been close to Rowan .v. The Rest Of The World. The great majority of political, media and populist commentators have chosen to demonise and attack Williams and his remarks, and any sampling of readers’ or viewers’ opinions shows more or less wholehearted condemnation. It is very rare for the forces of media opinion to be so united in their opposition to a stated opinion from a public figure.
Personally, I think it’s all a storm in a teacup.
I find no reason or evidence to suggest that Williams is anything but an idiot. His full-time profession involves parroting out-moded medieval claptrap that is self-contradictory. It is the easiest thing in the world to pose ‘theological’ questions that would leave him and his ilk spluttering incoherent, meaningless garbage. As such, it is perfectly safe and indeed advisable to just ignore anything he says for the deranged nonsense that it is.
The British legal system is just that… a system. It’s a democratic system, and the law cannot be changed except by a majority vote in both houses of parliament. As there is very close to zero support for Williams’ stupid idea in any political party, it just isn’t going to happen. Case closed.
Why the assumption that everything needs an act of parliament? It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a way found for the current system to accomodate Sharia decisions without any of these dramatic votes.
Gorilla my Man, I didn’t address the Archbishop’s comments (and I won’t - I haven’t read them, so I won’t speak from ignorance). I addressed your calling Jodi, a fairly well-respected and rational poster, in effect an Islamophobe. You said that what Jodi posted was an “Islamophobic stereotype”, and sadly, the plight of women around the world subject to the more brutal forms of Sharia - especially when it comes to marital disputes - is not a “stereotype”, it is reality for them, and something I’ve studied for nearly 20 years.
Sharia in the form it is actually practiced is often (but not always) not in keeping with recognition of human rights. This is pretty much indisputable. In fact, I’ve already provided the links, so I will not debate it. Recognizing the potential risk of a Sharia-based system to women’s rights and using an example drawn from real life events is not Islamophobia, even if it did not accurately represent what the Archbishop was saying. I submit that while Jodi’s characterization of Sharia does not apply to all cases, neither is she or what she said “Islamophobic.”
Jodi’s response was directly to a quote from Rowan Williams. It deliberately merged the issue of marital disputes, which was the actual topic, into the very different area of penal law. Nothing else was offered. I’m not quite sure how I was supposed to interpret it by anything other than the words in front of me.
Fair enough, Gorilla my Man, I likely misunderstood your intent. I still feel that there was little cause to drop the I-bomb on Jodi, and I assure you that it’s misplaced.
To explain this with a bit less heat, the above isn’t quite normative. There’s a real core of truth to it and under some systems that is de facto what it has come down to. But classically each of these three pronouncements are followed by an iddat, a three month cooling off period wherein the couple continues to live together and the wife must be provided for and properly treated. The first two ( six months in total ) allow for reconciliation of some form and back to the status quo. After the final declaration the divorce is considered a done deal, but the husband still has an obligation to support his wife for a further three months. So the whole process of male-initiated divorce should take nine months with lots of religious counseling ( inevitably anti-divorce ) et al.
Male-initiated divorces are typically “no fault” - no reason required. So, too, I think with mutual divorce ( khula ). Female-initiated divorce on the other hand is either by cause ( beating her, lack of financial support, sterile or impotent, etc. ) through the court ( with a single iddat mandated, longer if she is pregnant ) or no fault if the guy agreed to a marriage contract stipulating that at the start of the marriage.
Children typically go to the wife and regardless of divorce the guy is obligated to support the kids ( but not the ex, per se ).
So it can be rather more nuanced that your statement above implies, hence perhaps the heated response. Of course even given the above it is clearly not a gender-neutral affair - the woman’s options are definitely constrained relative to the man’s. But it’s also not always quite as dire as sometimes portrayed.
The connection of sharia to “honour killings” is even more tenuous. Many, many Islamic jurists would deny it has any religious sanction at all.
Which doesn’t mean they don’t happen, of course. We all know they do and with distressing frequency in certain locales.
The nub of the problem is encapsulated by this comment. If it doesn’t involve an act of parliament or a decision of the existing court system (or in the case of subordinate legislation, an act of the appropriate delegate) it’s not law. That’s what law is in the UK.
If a Sharia “decision” is being made, then it’s either being made in accordance with some law, or it’s not a legal decision but a social one, with no effect at law.
If the former, then parliamentary ratification of particular law for one religious group must be involved. If the latter then we are not talking about law at all, but just some sort of arrangement outside where application of law is required. In which case no change is needed, since that is already permissable.
Much as he may be talking around it, Williams speech is either discussing (in fact) no change to the law at all but merely some sort of social recognition of sharia, or he is talking about changing secular law to suit particular religious views.
And I would be in favour of the latter to the same extent for Sharia as for Scientology, Christianity or Animism.
You haven’t thought it through. At present, anyone can (as between the disputing parties) decide to resolve any dispute in any way they like, short of violence. There is absolutely no need to change anything to give effect to this. Already (in my field of shipping law) it is not merely common but near universal that shipowners and charterers for example agree to opt out of the court system because they like their disputes to be resolved by their colleagues in private arbitration.
Muslims in the UK have full access to the current secular dispute resolution process. They also have (to the extent they want it) total freedom to reach agreement not to access that process and to resolve a dispute some other way. Therefore, the only change you could make would be one restricting Muslim access to the secular dispute resolution process, since they currently have full freedom in every other direction.
Do you think it would be a good idea to say to Muslims that don’t want a dispute in which they are involved to be heard in accordance with sharia that they must nonetheless resolve their dispute in that way, and that the secular system is only available to non-muslims?