In this thread on Ghaddif’s killing, (The Gadhafi conundrum: Trial for his killers? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board), we started a discussion of the role of Sharia law in Libya, and in other states.
So, here’s the new thread. Let’s discuss!
I agree, but most of the world doesn’t.
Nor is it merely backward Third World countries that do this.
Virtually all European nations have established religions.
For example, the Monarch of the UK, their official Head of State, must be an Anglican.
Were Charles to convert to Catholicism, he’d have to give up the throne.
All true, though I would note that just as there are variations on the role that Shariah law can play in the states that implement some form of it, there are also differences in the roles that other religions can play in states that give them some official status. In the UK, the Anglican church has an official role, and that’s regrettable - but the elected government is basically secular, and the monarch has little real power. So, I’d call this a fairly mild case.
I am hoping this thread is as informative as I am hoping, especially from you.
Maybe it would be clarifying if you explain what elements of Shariah are in the secular law of Israel.
When I hear about Shariah law being part of a country’s law, I think about elements of Muslim law and practice that must be followed even by non-Muslims. It would be like Israel making it illegal to sell cheeseburgers in Tel Aviv or something.
Is that what you meant, or do I misunderstand?
If you are willing. I don’t mean to attack you, whose posts I usually read and often find enlightening.
Regards,
Shodan
As to what elements of Shariah law are in Israel’s legal system, Israel doesn’t really have secular marriage or family law. There are a few laws that touch on it, but for the most part, no, and marriage and family matters are handled in religious courts under Talmudic law if you’re Jewish, Sharia law if you’re Muslim, and Canon law if you’re Christian.
Thanks.
Who handles it if you are “none of the above”?
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks for starting this thread. I only sort of began the hijack because I figured Oak knew better; the Taliban is no more representative of Sharia law than the Star Chambers are representative of English common law.
Apparently, I was wrong.
As a side discussion, what is the moral/ethical difference between Sharia law, which people like Rick Perry condemn and “Christian” law, which they demand?
They’re parting on the right.
Apparently, Cyprus (which is near) or Paraguay (which allows marriages arranged through its consulate).
Seriously.
Way it works is this: Israel inherited from the Ottomans-then-Brits a strictly confessional marriage system, which because of the stranglehold of the ultra-orthodox (in conjunction with religious voters of other faiths, mainly Muslims) it has proven impossible to change … but Israel recognizes marriages abroad as valid.
So the shameful (to the spineless politicians) circumlocution has arisen that Israelis who for whatever reason want a civil marriage - either because they are not religious, or are marrying across religious communities - they get a foreign marriage, either by going somewhere like Cyprus (which has made a mini-industry out of marrying Israelis) or ordering one from Paraguay.
How do they (ie, non-religious parties to a civil marriage) get a divorce in Israel? Divide marital property, including real property located in Israel? Decide child custody/support/visitation issues?
I don’t know - these questions go beyond my area of knowledge.
Hahaha. The wonders that religion has wrought upon us. I have little or no knowledge of Sharia. However, since it is based upon religion, I feel safe in saying that it will ground the identity and ethics of the country in a system that was developed when we had little understanding of the world around us, and even less understanding of ourselves and our relation to it. It will thus act as a regressive force in the development of that country. Not something that’s impossible to overcome of course. Just something that makes life tougher over the medium term. ( And maybe, just maybe, easier over the short term by providing a common identity to rally around )
Well, in Israel it isn’t just one religious law, but at least twelve - nine different Christian ones, Jewish, Muslim and Druze.
So there is no “common identity”, since it rather re-enforces communal differences.
OTOH, Israel recognizes such things as same-sex marriages entered abroad, same as civil marriages.
It’s an odd thing, a sort of fossilized remnant of the Ottoman legal system.
No fan of Islam, but Sharia law has some advantages-in criminal matters, you are responsible to the injured party-in the USA, you are responsible to the state.
Hence, in an accident, the guilty party can get off by paying compensation-which is a heap better that you get here (the state will award you NOTHING-you must seek damages in civil court).
It depends if you’re a member of a religion recognized in Israel or not. It’s complicated, though. I’d check out this guy’s website. He’s got a bunch of frequently asked questions about family law:
An accident in US or English law would very rarely be a matter of criminal court anyway. I assume that under Shariah law, just as under *old *English law, you could get out of *murder *by paying compensation to the victim ('s family). English jurisprudence decided that was a bad idea some time ago.
Combining criminal and civil claims stemming from the same occurrence would be much more efficient, though.
Sharia includes punishing theft with hand amputation and death for apostasy (for Muslims). In some occasions it includes mandatory zakat, which is an example of capital levy.
It also includes marriage and divorce rules that are a lot more equitable than what we have in the West nowadays. Namely, there is no arbitrarily imposed alimony from the court, and the dowry assets that will be forfeited to the wife in the event of divorce are known from the start by both parties. Child support rules seem saner too, see here http://www.islamic-sharia.org/children/islamic-perspective-on-child-custody-after-divorce.html . I think it’s no coincidence that there is no “men’s rights movement” among Muslims and they have fairly high marriage rates and birth rates.
Were he to marry any non-Protestant, he’d have to give up the throne. I think that’s still the law.