[Casual]

Sharia comments trigger criticism

Dr Williams made his comments in a BBC radio interview

The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of some aspects of Sharia law in the UK.
Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said such moves would create "social chaos."

The Muslim Council of Britain said it was a complex issue in need of debate, but stressed it would only involve a "small aspect" of the law.

'Unacceptable and unhelpful'

Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.

Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

Sharia law in the UK

But Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".

He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said: "To ask us to fundamentally change the rule of law and to adopt Sharia law, I think, is fundamentally wrong."

Shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi told BBC News 24 the suggestion was unhelpful and said: "Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that there should be two systems of law, running alongside each other, almost parallel, and for people to be offered the choice of opting into one or the other. That is unacceptable."

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he had "an enormous amount of respect" for Dr Williams, but could not agree with him on this issue.

He said: "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another."

Trevor Phillips, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous".

In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

He stressed "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".

'Respect and tolerance'

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is" was dangerous.

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, welcomed Dr Williams's comments, saying they "further underline the attempts by both our great faiths to build respect and tolerance".

He added: "I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth.

"Let's debate this issue. It is very complex. It is not as straight forward as saying that we will have a system here."

Link to Article

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks the UK should adopt Sharia law. Discuss.

[Simperin' Fool]

I'm an anarchist. I don't relate to the U.S. legal system. I demand an exception in the law just for me that lets me live according to my anarchist principles: I want to live in the woods somewhere, build a cabin on government land, not pay taxes, and be immune to arrest for any reason, while still enjoying the benefits of being a U.S. citizen. Screw everyone else; I'm special, damn it.

It's utterly absurd. If anyone feels so ostracised that society doesn't adapt and change just for them, they have the option of living somewhere else.

[Chyld]

Thank you very much Archbishop, you're making me agree with the jowley Scottish git.

I used to be fairly tolerant of immigration, raising an eyebrow at just about everyone I know complaining its fucking up our country. But they're right. I'm perfectly content with people plainly coming over here, working hard for their money, and obeying our laws. But they're sneaking in under the big train, scamming off of our (frankly ludicrous) welfare system, and now they're suggesting not just changing the law, but changing the whole freaking legal system to make them feel at home. Not to mention how nobody learns the language of whatever country they go into (I'll quite freely admit even I'd come under that banner)

Lets look at it another way. Lets say I emigrated to... ooh, lets say China, where I'd be a minority, probably much maligned, wouldn't know the language (not a hope in hell, I'm afraid), and no real skills. I'd be royally rodgered, wouldn't I? I couldn't demand that everywhere I went they'd have translations and translators (this analogy isn't helped by the fact that everywhere has English writing, but pretend), they wouldn't give me free money and a free house just because I'd come from overseas, and I couldn't go around shouting that Communism is batty and demand English law. At best, I'd be sent home, at worst I'd hjave three shades of jelly knocked out of me.

I wish I could be nicer about it, because there's probably thousands of immigrants in this country who've come over legally, to escape whatever in their home country, put in the time to accimilate into our society, and work hard to get what they deserve. But its like America, the laziest and the stupidest are ruining it for everyone.

...also the Archbishop has a silly beard

[Simperin' Fool]

All of my school textbooks are printed in English, and have secondary glossaries in Spanish. Where's the logic? It's incredibly annoying, because whenever I open one of them and try to look in the glossary, I get the Spanish one and have to leaf through a dozen pages that all look the same over and over again and it takes me five minutes to find what I'm looking for. I think my books are spiting me for not paying attention in my Spanish 1 class.

This post has been edited by Simperin' Fool: 08 February 2008 - 08:29 AM

[Slade]

Yeah, it's utter nonsense. Even ignoring how misogynistic most Islamic law seems to be, it is ridiculous to expect to get special treatment to the point of having your own laws for your tiny pocket of society for any reason. The entire point of the law is that everybody needs to follow it. If you disagree with it, you can try to change it (fat chance of trying to push for theocracy in the UK), or you can try to find a place that already has something that you're looking for in place. And even then, it has to be applied equally.

[Spoon Poetic]

Well, I for one am all for it. Now all the women can be ostracized more! Think about it - whereas before, if the women looked around them and saw how the heathen English were doing it and started liking their sordid slutty ways, they could turn to English law and get themselves out of their properly abusive Islamic marriages. But this way, since the Muslims would have their own court, the women would forever be powerless! Yes!!! And man, finally, there will be some corporal punishment happening! I sure can't wait to see someone stoned to death because they stepped out on their spouse. Ooh, or an amputation for theft!!!
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Sharia_law in case anyone needs to read up on it.

Okay, my beef is, doesn't someone generally immigrate so that they can be in a place different than where they were originally? So why would you immigrate and then want to make everything the same as where you come from? You might as well just move back, right?

I'm all for respecting other cultures but this is pretty ridiculous.

[Jordan]

Don't be so narrow minded guys, all the muslims in England are GOOD people, there is no fear. They're not like that itty bitty tiny fanatical sect, no way.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 08 February 2008 - 12:07 PM

[civilian_number_two]

This reminds me of how some European Christians recently tried to change the US Constitution to ban gay marriage. Apparently they didn't find enough in the definition of marriage to back the religious laws they brought with them from the lands the immigrated from.

Also, Sharia Law sucks. I just don't like the argument that we shouldn't make laws determined or decided by the citizenry. Any argument will sound racist; see Chyld's, above (it sounds racist). What I do like is case-by-case investigation. For those who just want to say "don't let them immigrants change my country," you'll end up getting the result you want, because many aspects of Sharia Law could not be passed through your legislature. Those aspects that could, you wouldn't care about.

[Spoon Poetic]

Yeah, changing the Constitution to fit the Christian religion sucks, too. Huckabee's all like "We should change the Constitution to fit God's Holy Word, because we can't change God's Holy Word to fit the Constitution!" Makes me shudder.

I don't mind laws determined by the citizenry - that's how the U.S. is supposed to work, after all. But for a tiny little portion of the citizenry to have their very own completely different set of laws than the rest of the country is confusing, unfair, and could open up a whole new can of worms in many different issues.

[Jordan]

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Look at the list of countries on the right that support marriage or civil unions. The US and europe is apparently over run with CHristians but many states offer civil unions. You think this kind of thing would happen if you replaced every christian with a muslim, fuck no.

Why can't people just debate the shitiness of Islam without bringing up Christianity. Or fine bring it up, but make clear distinctions. Christians are against Abortions and Gays. Muslims are against anything that isn't Islamically accredited. Christians USE the same political tactics as non-christians. They shit smear and fear monger. They don't impose a Christian courts or rule. Shira Law does.

Those aspects that could, you wouldn't care about.

I don't know about that, if the Canadian Government publicly announced it was borrowing from shira law, even one of the lesser aspects like cutting your toe nails, I'd still be put off.

I personally don't put too much focus on gays. I'm surrounded by them all the time where I live and they don't bother me as much as they once did. I wouldn't go to the pump jack on a friday night, but I'm not paranoid when i'm around them as I once was in my late teens.

Yeah, changing the Constitution to fit the Christian religion sucks

Ok, the consitution was clearly written by a few Christians, and when they used words like "god' and stuff they obviously meant the Christian god. I doubt the forefathers of your country were beat niks or hindus. Thomas Jefferson, who championed church from state, was a Christian.

Ok I just did some research and it turns out he was a weirdo christian. He believed in the moral codes but no the supernatural aspects of the bible. I don't know what tahts called.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 08 February 2008 - 01:41 PM

[Simperin' Fool]

Deist.

There were other deists like him, and even agnostics and atheists, involved in ratifying the Constitution. It was meant to be a secular thing.

This post has been edited by Simperin' Fool: 08 February 2008 - 01:56 PM

[Casual]

How is chylds post racist? He used no racial slurs and didn’t bring being Arab into it at all.

This makes me more angry than I can really put into words and I want to make it clear that I'm not angry because its sharia law; I'm angry because it’s religious law. For me the best part of being British is that’s its legal system is secular we got rid of blasphemy and anti-gay laws decades ago and good riddance to them. To put it in perspective this article does only talk about introducing certain civil aspects of sharia law for divorce child custody and so forth, but my problem with this is that’s its obviously the thin edge of the wedge. Once we introduce these how long before Muslim women in the UK legally have to wear head scarfs and men have to grow beards? How long before the first women gets stoned to death for being raped? That’s all I can think about when I read this article so I'm going to let my usual level headed approach slip and say this...

The archbishop of Canterbury can take his stupid eyebrows and FUCK RIGHT OFF because sharia law gets introduced in this country over my dead festering arse!

[Jordan]

That will never happen in English courts, unless Muslims population grows enough for a revolt, which it might since their population in europe has been steadily growing. And it's got to the point that you can't not let them in cause that is wrong.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 08 February 2008 - 02:18 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Did anyone notice this little paragraph about the aspects of Shariah law they'd like put into practice?

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth.

Yes a lot of Shariahs criminal law is, frankly, barbaric. But they seem to be advocating the adoption of their civil law. Which is unfortunately also pretty off. (Did you know that if you text message your wife 3 times saying "I divorce you" it counts as a legal divorce?)

Anyhow, I hope there is a way that Islamic countries can eventually secularize in the way that a few have already. Sharia definately needs to be reworked rather than spread.

[Casual]

To put it in perspective this article does only talk about introducing certain civil aspects of sharia law for divorce child custody and so forth, but my problem with this is that’s its obviously the thin edge of the wedge.

I shall quote myself like the arrogant bastard I really am. Yes I know they were only talking about civil law but even ignoring the fact that as you say its not perfect either my problem is that it would get their foot in the door and set a precedent. This would be the first step on a path back to the dark ages, put this in effect and you may as well start the witch hunts again.

I'm especially irritated by the MCB acting like this is a serious government proposal and not the irrational ramblings of a madman in a dress(with stupid eyebrows).