if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Sharia In The UK
by
“I am an Islamist!/And I am an anti-Christ!” - The Kominas
Just as my sarcastic comment about Islam being incompatible with western culture is called into question, I read this:
Britain’s encounter with Islamic law
Beneath the deceptively placid surface of everyday life, the British population is engaged in a momentous encounter with Islam. Three developments of the past week, each of them culminating years’ long trend - and not just some odd occurrence - exemplify changes now underway.
First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term “war on terror” would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds “shared values as a means to counter terrorists.”
Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the “Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003”: previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India. In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief.
THIRD, THE archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, endorsed applying portions of the Islamic law (the Shari’a) in Great Britain. Adopting its civil elements, he explained, “seems unavoidable” because not all British Muslims relate to the existing legal system and applying the Shari’a would help with their social cohesion. When Muslims can go to an Islamic civil court, they need not face “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.” Continuing to insist on the “legal monopoly” of British common law rather than permit Shari’a, Williams warned, would bring on “a bit of a danger” for the country.
It ends with this:
These developments suggest that British appeasement concerning the war on terror, the nature of the family, and the rule of law are part of a larger pattern. Even more than the security threat posed by Islamist violence, these trends are challenging and perhaps will change the very nature of Western life.
So, unless Muslims are willing to cede the authority of Islamic law to that of western democracy then, yes, Islam is incompatible with western culture. I don’t see any way around it. Governments that capitulate to the exact type of archaic laws that we fought wars to overcome are doomed to fall.
Comments
First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term “war on terror” would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds “shared values as a means to counter terrorists.”
This I agree with. When young muslims are constantly told “Muslims blow shit up” ... and they know they want to be Muslims they think ... ok, let’s blow ship it. I exaggerate but surley you can see the point, “branding” terrorism (and remember this is all a battle of ideas in the end) as anti-islamic/muslim is a much much better idea than branding it as a muslim response to something.
archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said some shit that is stupid however people should be able to decide a solution to their problems without using courts; this is an essential libertarian principle. If people are happy to decide things such as the marriage or solving a buisness problem and use some religious court to do this; then that is fine - AS LONG as civil courts trump all this. This is where Williams gets confused (because at the end of the day being the head of a church he really likes the idea of theocracy even if that theocracy would be very different to say Huckabee’s version of it).
I’ll add there have been Jewish courts operating in the UK for about 15 years. Does anyone care?
The polygyamy tax stuff seems far more worrying; although its the first I have heard of that; need to look into it.
I’ll add there have been Jewish courts operating in the UK for about 15 years. Does anyone care?
Seeing as how the Jews are not well known for promoting forced marriages for 11 year old girls, performing “honor” killings, or death sentences for rape victims; I’d say I have no real problem with it.
this is an essential libertarian principle.
Not when it infringes on basic human rights.
Tell me. Do you think it’s fine for a man to take his wife to sharia court over walking with another man? What if her punishment is 50 lashes or some other corporal punishment? Does the state not have a responsibility to protect the wife’s rights?
There are countless problems with giving religious law equal footing. What do we do when some Muslim girl marries a non-Muslim in violation of sharia law and her father files charges? Doesn’t she have a right to marry whomever she wants?
The Jewish courts are bullshit too.
There was a case years ago involving some American Indians who committed some crime off the reservation but were allowed to be tried by the tribal court. Their punishment was something like a year of exile. Many people were outraged and of course, the punishment didn’t even work.
Screw that shit.
I’ll add there have been Jewish courts operating in the UK for about 15 years. Does anyone care?
If they are involved in civil/legal/secular matters, yes.
If they are dealing with religious matters, no.
There are Jewish courts in the US, too. They deal with things like divorce. They carry no legal weight. This is as it should be. When my parents divorced, they had a no-fault legal divorce from the state of Pennsylvania. My mother refused to grant my father a divorce in the Jewish court (still has, AFAIK, 25+ years later). In the eyes of the legal system, my dad is legally remarried. In the eyes of the Jewish court, he’s living in sin (my step-mother is non-Jewish, too, so he has 2 strikes against him).
Other examples include the Pennsylvania Dutch. Buggies have to have license plates and safety lighting/reflectors. Etc.
There’s a big difference between respecting all faiths (or non-faiths) and bending over for them. The Muslims and Scientologists need to learn this.
I could care less about religious court rulings because it’s all fantasy anyway. If the person doesn’t care about “living in sin” then I guess the religious court ruling is a moot point.
Seeing as how the Jews are not well known for promoting forced marriages for 11 year old girls, performing “honor” killings, or death sentences for rape victims; I’d say I have no real problem with it.
I am sorry, what is the relevance here? There is no suggestion of changes to criminal law. These sharia “courts” are nothing to do with these things, in the same way the Jewish courts have nothing to do with them; but courts can only judge at all if people choose to use them, and their decisions are not legally binding either.
Not when it infringes on basic human rights.
There is no suggestion they will. As I said, criminal courts will (and must) trump.
Tell me. Do you think it’s fine for a man to take his wife to sharia court over walking with another man? What if her punishment is 50 lashes or some other corporal punishment? Does the state not have a responsibility to protect the wife’s rights?
These courts are not allowed to punish people in any way, shape or form.
There are countless problems with giving religious law equal footing. What do we do when some Muslim girl marries a non-Muslim in violation of sharia law and her father files charges? Doesn’t she have a right to marry whomever she wants?
Yes. She just dosen’t go to the court. They are optional.
The Jewish courts are bullshit too.
Consistant at least.
There was a case years ago involving some American Indians who committed some crime off the reservation but were allowed to be tried by the tribal court. Their punishment was something like a year of exile. Many people were outraged and of course, the punishment didn’t even work.
Completly different as this is an issue of soverignity and a seperate criminal system. This is nothing like what is being talked about here where people can role on personal matters without using civil courts. 95% of these cases are about divorces; and they try and resolve the situation; in the same way a lot of other couples avoid courts and go to mediators.
There are Jewish courts in the US, too. They deal with things like divorce. They carry no legal weight. This is as it should be.
That is what the sharia courts are as well.
If you want to read for more intelligent for and against arguments for this thing, try these:
The libertarian argument ][url=http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2008/02/rowan-williams.html]for them /url]
and
[url=http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/strands-of-sharia/]A british muslim against them[/url
Doh, useless links - but you can copy and paste. it’s worth it.
Those would have hosed the comments had you succeeded.
Next entry: A Nation of Racists
Previous entry: Removing The Gag
And I was calling the city council in Berkeley a bunch of pussies for not standing up for their own positions. It’s the goddam second coming of Neville Chamberlain. Berkeley got nothing on the UK in pussiness, it seems.
Someone go knock on parliament’s door and explain to them that theocracy is FTL.
Of course, we have Huckabee…