Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

What do you think of "Sharia courts" in Britain where people can go voluntarily ( <_< ) to settle issues?

Perhaps you need to expand your own information bubble on this one Csaba. Here is a more neutral picture than you have seemingly read elsewhere.

[gwnn]

Perhaps you need to expand your own information bubble on this one Csaba. Here is a more neutral picture than you have seemingly read elsewhere.

Instead of starting on the path towards calling each other names, maybe you could tell me which part of that source contradicts what I said? This is the most important principle that I was talking about:

So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying religious principles.

And I am strongly skeptical on whether or not you can ascertain the "both parties agree" part.

 

Or should we just start throwing links at each other's faces? OK:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/14/sharia-courts-family-law-women

 

Or is the leftist Guardian also an example that I am living in an information bubble?

 

I am not sure I want to take the word of your "neutral picture" source

 

The coalition government had said that the courts have the powers they need to protect people from coercion and unequal treatment.

 

over women who are actually under these structures.

 

The signatories to the statement have witnessed, experienced or fled from the horrors and degradations of “honour” killings, domestic violence, child and ritual abuse, forced marriage, polygamy, rape and sexual assaults. They speak out against religious impositions that exacerbate their daily struggles to live their lives as they choose. They reject the forces of fundamentalism and patriarchy that seek to divide and govern through surveillance and control of female sexuality.

 

But to each his own I guess! Sorry for living in a bubble and believing them.

[Zelandakh]

The point is that your initial post is factually untrue. Sharia councils do not have the status of court and may not bypass national law. There is certainly a case that no relgious bodies at all should be involved under any circumstances but if a couple decide to use a mediator independently, is it really right for the State to deny them that? That is not a particularly easy area to operate in as, as you say, there are pressures that can be brought to bear that may result in a less favourable result being given to one side or the other. I am sure that these councils know just how far they can go in a ruling to get past the national law clauses.

 

In essence I am not against legislation to protect groups from such mediation services. I simply object to their being described as courts and of having the power to divorce a couple independently of the law of the land. This is a misrepresentation of the current situation. To go on to suggest that even grosser discrimination is possible, in direct contravention of national laws, is almost as fake as what is coming out of the US in recent times. There is no provision for such an action and no basis for the fear that this might happen any time soon.

 

Finally, sharia law exists in many different forms. It is not as cut and dry as parties such as UKIP would have you believe. It is certainly true that it is used to justify some acts that are, from our Western perspective, pretty barbaric and it saddens me that the women in your article had to go through that. And I would certainly be horrified at the idea that they might fear something similar happening in Britain. But Britain is not Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, etc. To bring up the actions that were done in other countries as reason to change the law in the UK is just wrong. If women are suffering from these actions in Britain, that needs to be dealt with. And if there is pressure on abused women/LGBTs not to speak out, that culture needs to be addressed and the victims empowered. I feel that it should be possible to deal with such abusers within the current laws. If not, then I would of course also support a change in legislation.

[gwnn]

OK, thanks for that clarification. There's a reason why one should explain whether they disagree with the entire post or just a specific example in it (divorce) while agreeing with the general feeling (of being worried about practical issues about consent). I admit I did not read all the laws regarding this and my original post was in factual error about "Islamic divorce" if we are talking about the letter of the law. I am not convinced that this matters so much though... Probably it's not a great idea to talk about isolated cases, but what about her?

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/one-woman-s-brush-with-sharia-courts-in-uk

 

(a woman has got a valid legal divorce but the husband wanted to go through the Sharia courts as well; emphasis mine):

Another Imam, a close family friend of ours, told us that Lubna would have to seek a khula (divorce) from a Sharia court. I vehemently disagreed and cited the cases of several Muslim women I had known who had been divorced in the English courts without any need for a religious divorce. These women had since remarried too. The imam said the mosques had failed in their duty and that these women would go to hell as they were committing zina (adultery) and producing haram children. (...)

Fair enough, so after this, the woman agreed to go to the Sharia council "of her own accord".

 

From the Guardian again (which notes everything that you noted, ie, they are just toy courts, informal, no legal standing, ...):

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/mar/01/inside-britains-sharia-councils-hardline-and-anti-women-or-a-dignified-way-to-divorce

 

Subject to various conditions and restrictions, husbands can end the marriage simply by declaring they are divorcing their wife – known as a talaq. A wife can also initiate a divorce (known as a khula), and if the husband agrees, the marriage can be ended. If he contests it, a third party can dissolve the contract – which is where sharia councils step in. Without the council rulings, the panel tell me, many women feel they are still married in the sight of God – even if they have had a civil divorce.[/q]

(the panel = the particular Sharia council the journalists talked to)

 

There are also women who, whether by their own accord or coerced, only marry through sharia councils.

One pressing problem is the increasing number of Muslim couples who are at the mercy of sharia councils because they have had religious ceremonies to mark their marriage but are not legally married under UK law.

So at the end of the day it's still the same question... Are these people willing participants of the toy, harmless, consultative religious courts or are they guilted/pressured/beaten into submission? And are we sure it's a good idea to have something that arbitrates, however non-bindingly, according to these principles? Informing the participants that none of these decisions are binding in any way would be a very good start (ad nauseam, perhaps, much like we have health warnings on cigarettes). IANAL, sadly, so I am sure a lot of these concerns are addressed at least formally, but I also know that most people are NALE (not a lawyer either) and it's not obvious to me what the main benefit of having these courts/councils is.

[Winstonm]

What do you think of "Sharia courts" in Britain where people can go voluntarily ( <_< ) to settle issues? For example, divorce is treated vastly differently in Sharia, in particular when it comes to men vs women. Now, maybe you can tell me that a woman voluntarily wants to get a divorce in a court where she will be strongly disadvantaged over men (when compared to standard British law), but I'll much sooner assume she is being pressured into going to the Sharia courts on pain of shunning or ostracism (hopefully not physical violence). Where, in this analysis, if someone is skeptical of the whole concept, are we saying

 

? Does this mean that if 90% of British Muslims want to make a law against 10% of British Muslims, we should let them? Of course, in this case, it is even worse as it is 50% ruling against 50% and we have to accept this. The same goes for inheritance, where women are systemically disadvantaged 2:1 over men.

 

 

I think almost everyone who incorrectly uses the term law about Sharia is confused about the influences of culture on a religion, and that Sharia is localized custom rather than global. Religions are reactive and change is gradual, brought about by pressure from cultural mores as that which used to be intolerable is absorbed peacefully into the culture. This is quite easily shown when viewing the culture that allowed the Inquisitions to occur and the culture today where mass torture would bring lawful consquences. When the most vile aspects of local Sharia are seen in this light, it is more understandable that the least advanced Sharia tends to occur in areas that are the least advanced cultures.

 

Generalization about all of Islam based on the Sharia of the Taliban in Afghanistan is like accusing all Christianity of evil intent based on the actions of David Koresh.

[gwnn]

I think almost everyone who incorrectly uses the term law about Sharia is confused about the influences of culture on a religion, and that Sharia is localized custom rather than global. Religions are reactive and change is gradual, brought about by pressure from cultural mores as that which used to be intolerable is absorbed peacefully into the culture. This is quite easily shown when viewing the culture that allowed the Inquisitions to occur and the culture today where mass torture would bring lawful consquences. When the most vile aspects of local Sharia are seen in this light, it is more understandable that the least advanced Sharia tends to occur in areas that are the least advanced cultures.

 

Generalization about all of Islam based on the Sharia of the Taliban in Afghanistan is like accusing all Christianity of evil intent based on the actions of David Koresh.

Did you quote my post by accident? I never generalized about all of Islam based on Afghanistan. My post was about Sharia councils/courts in the UK and whether it's enough guarantee to have both parties agree on participating or whether many people are just pressured into it. Would you like to reply to my post? I am honestly interested in your opinion.

[Winstonm]

Did you quote my post by accident? I never generalized about all of Islam based on Afghanistan. My post was about Sharia councils/courts in the UK and whether it's enough guarantee to have both parties agree on participating or whether many people are just pressured into it. Would you like to reply to my post? I am honestly interested in your opinion.

 

I was neither criticizing nor meant to suggest your post meant all of Islam - I simply used it to point to a common misunderstanding about Sharia in that it is not a universal Islamic law. I hope you don't mind.

[Elianna]

The same thing can happen for Jewish couples to. To divorce religiously, the man must give the woman a "get". I've heard of cases where the man basically extorts the wife for better terms by threatening to withhold a get, even if they are divorced in terms of civil law. What people do now is petition the court to include a ruling that the man must grant one as part of the terms of the divorce.

 

(My main point is that divorce is an issue for other religions, too, not just Islam)

[gwnn]

oh yes I heard of those religious courts too (sorry, I'll continue to call them religious courts) and I actually wanted to mention them in my first post. I fully oppose both implementations, notwithstanding their​ *de jure* toothlessness.

[Winstonm]

Today's testimony by Yates and Clapper was an impressive display of the Roman-like phalanx that is created by the Republican Party and why they are difficult to defeat.

[jogs]

Today's progressive left is much like yesterday's Catholic Church. Once each has taken a position on an issue, discussion has ended and dissent is no longer tolerated.

Going against the Church is heresy. Going against the left will get you branded racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

Galileo agreed with Copernicus that the earth revolved around the sun. The Church labeled Galileo an heretic. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.

The progressive left is not as powerful as the Catholic Church. The progressive left can and does demonized all those who don't fall in line. Trump is number 1 on their hit list.

[jogs]

Sharia Law is basically just the codification of Muslim traditions, much as the Talmud is codification of Jewish traditions.

 

Being against Sharia Law is essentially saying that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious traditions. It's analogous to saying that Christian marriages performed by priests were not legally binding, or that Jews should not be allowed to keep Kosher.

 

Does Sharia Law include some pronouncements and requirements that are no longer appropriate in modern society? It certainly does. But so does the Christian Bible. Many US legislators refer to the Bible to justify their arguments against homosexuality and abortion. Why is that permitted, yet they worry about Sharia Law?

 

I suspect that most people who are concerned about Sharia Law invading our country don't even know what it consists of. They just associate it with Islam, and conflate it with the ideals of radical groups like ISIS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

 

Scroll down to "Human rights". I believe Sharia is unconstitutional in America.

[Zelandakh]

Today's progressive left is much like yesterday's Catholic Church.

Coming from an organisation that is supprted by today's Christianity and that has, if anything, become even less tolerant of other viewpoints in recent years, this post is actually quite hilarious....or at least it would be if it were not at the same time quite so sad. :blink:

[barmar]

(My main point is that divorce is an issue for other religions, too, not just Islam)

So much that there was a schism in Christianity a few centuries ago -- England switched from the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England when Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce or annullment.

[billw55]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

 

Scroll down to "Human rights". I believe Sharia is unconstitutional in America.

It certainly would be ... if it was a law. Which it isn't. I would certainly oppose it becoming law. I would equally oppose Christian doctrine becoming law.

[Winstonm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

 

Scroll down to "Human rights". I believe Sharia is unconstitutional in America.

 

Try to understand what Sharia is and you will make more sense.

[kenberg]

Try to understand what Sharia is and you will make more sense.

 

I have no plans to become an expert on any form of law, but I did browse through the wiki reference cited. I particularly noted

Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion. Before executing the death penalty, sharia demands that the individual be offered one chance to return to Islam.[

 

As someone who went through the confirmation process into the Presbyterian church and who later, not all that much later, came to reject its claims, but who has not been made subject to the death penalty, this got my attention.. I understand that I have been condemned to hell, the minister made that clear, but for the moment all is well.

[Winstonm]

I have no plans to become an expert on any form of law, but I did browse through the wiki reference cited. I particularly noted

 

 

As someone who went through the confirmation process into the Presbyterian church and who later, not all that much later, came to reject its claims, but who has not been made subject to the death penalty, this got my attention.. I understand that I have been condemned to hell, the minister made that clear, but for the moment all is well.

 

I'm not sure of your point, Ken. As you are aware, I'm sure, the Old Testament had these capital offenses:

 

Having homosexual intercourse between men (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13).

 

Committing adultery between a man and a woman (Leviticus 20:10–12, Deuteronomy 22:22).

 

Lying about virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).[4]

 

Being one of the majority of women who don’t bleed when losing their virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20–21).[5]

 

Being the daughter of a priest and practicing prostitution (Leviticus 21:9).[6]

 

It is not what is written but how it is believed and administered that counts.

[gwnn]

Wherever there are Leviticus+Deuteronomy-based courts (whether with formal power or informal one + peer pressure), I will find it equally abhorrent and will oppose it. What is your point? "What about the Bible?" is not a get out of jail free card. And no, not saying that just the Old Testament is bad (the NT is better, but I also oppose applying it in legislation).

 

Yes, Sharia has many different interpretations, at least when it comes to what common people believe about it. The numbers change wildly between believers when you go from country to country. For example, corporal punishment for theft?

 

this and several following ones from:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-chp1-7.png

 

I'm way too lazy to average this info, but let's call it ~50% with quartiles at 45 and 70?

 

Or stoning for adultery? Similar numbers.

 

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-chp1-8.png

 

Death for apostasy, an infamous one?

 

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-chp1-9.png

 

Note that these have been normalized to people who think it should be the law of the land (although there are many people who think it should only be applied to Muslims, an easy but not overwhelming majority in most countries:

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2013/04/gsi2-chp1-5.png

 

About British Muslims:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.

 

(...)

 

Nearly a quarter (23%) supported the introduction of sharia law in some areas of Britain, and 39% agreed that “wives should always obey their husbands”, compared with 5% of the country as a whole. Two-thirds (66%) said they completely condemned people who took part in stoning adulterers, and a further 13% condemned them to some extent*. Nearly a third (31%) thought it was acceptable for a British Muslim man to have more than one wife, compared with 8% of the wider population.

(* = 34% do not completely condemn people who took part in stoning adulterers and 21% do not condemn them at all).

 

There were some other, nicer numbers about British Muslims, such as:

Of those questioned, 88% said Britain was a good place for Muslims to live in, and 78% said they would like to integrate into British life on most things apart from Islamic schooling and some laws.

But for the moment we were talking about Sharia, just preempting the charge of quote-mining.

 

TL; DR: yes it has many interpretations of Sharia, but for most questions, out of people who favor introducing it, it's a question of spreads of 25%...75%. There are also many places where people are altogether opposed to introducing anything with the name Sharia.

 

To Zel: I'm sorry for being in my bubble again. I guess Pew and Channel 4 are also inside.

[StevenG]

Leaving Islam is a sin and a religious crime. Once any man or woman is officially classified as Muslim, because of birth or religious conversion, he or she will be subject to the death penalty if he or she becomes an apostate, that is, abandons his or her faith in Islam in order to become an atheist, agnostic or to convert to another religion. Before executing the death penalty, sharia demands that the individual be offered one chance to return to Islam.

So it's very like the EU, it seems.

[kenberg]

I'm not sure of your point, Ken. As you are aware, I'm sure, the Old Testament had these capital offenses:

 

Well, I remember things such as "Thy Lord thy God is a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me" but I don't recall any death sentence for simply walking away. I suppose it might well be there somewhere.

 

But I am prepared to agree that it all depends on what people mean when they advocate Sharia. The U.S. has some odd features. If you poll people, many are religious. But exactly what this means is not so clear. My father believed in God in the sense that if you asked "Do you believe in God?" he would answer "Yes". And he went to church from time to time. But that was about it. He would have been opposed to anyone casting the first stone, regardless of whether the person was without sin. But I never heard him quote the Bible, or even quote our minister, on this or on anything. And so it is with many. I can still come close to reciting The Apostle's Creed from memory, so if my life is at stake from someone who is out to execute formerly Christian unbelievers, I might survive. It's like the Gettysburg Address. When you are 10, you memorize what you are told to memorize. But while I know a fair number of people who would, if asked, describe themselves as religious, most of them spend little time thinking about it.

 

What's my point? Oh, I don't know. Maybe this: What does it mean to advocate for Sharia law? If a person wants to pray, he does not need my permission regardless of his choice of gods. So just what is it that the Sharia advocate wants to do that he cannot now do? I could be condemned to eternal damnation for leaving the Presbyterian church, this required no change in our laws. I could not be shot or whipped for this choice. And I would oppose any change in the laws that would allow this to happen. To anyone, of any religion. So just what is being advocated?

[jogs]

I suspect that most people who are concerned about Sharia Law invading our country don't even know what it consists of. They just associate it with Islam, and conflate it with the ideals of radical groups like ISIS.

 

I believe Sharia Law would be human right abuses and misogyny under Western law. Also ISIS is not radical. It is the true Islam. The 7th century Islam.

[Winstonm]

Well, I remember things such as "Thy Lord thy God is a jealous God, thou shalt have no other gods before me" but I don't recall any death sentence for simply walking away. I suppose it might well be there somewhere.

 

But I am prepared to agree that it all depends on what people mean when they advocate Sharia. The U.S. has some odd features. If you poll people, many are religious. But exactly what this means is not so clear. My father believed in God in the sense that if you asked "Do you believe in God?" he would answer "Yes". And he went to church from time to time. But that was about it. He would have been opposed to anyone casting the first stone, regardless of whether the person was without sin. But I never heard him quote the Bible, or even quote our minister, on this or on anything. And so it is with many. I can still come close to reciting The Apostle's Creed from memory, so if my life is at stake from someone who is out to execute formerly Christian unbelievers, I might survive. It's like the Gettysburg Address. When you are 10, you memorize what you are told to memorize. But while I know a fair number of people who would, if asked, describe themselves as religious, most of them spend little time thinking about it.

 

What's my point? Oh, I don't know. Maybe this: What does it mean to advocate for Sharia law? If a person wants to pray, he does not need my permission regardless of his choice of gods. So just what is it that the Sharia advocate wants to do that he cannot now do? I could be condemned to eternal damnation for leaving the Presbyterian church, this required no change in our laws. I could not be shot or whipped for this choice. And I would oppose any change in the laws that would allow this to happen. To anyone, of any religion. So just what is being advocated?

 

I have actually thought about this quite a bit. My opinion - and I can certainly be offbase and wrongheaded here - is that much of what we fear about Islam is a manifestation of a foreign culture rather than a foreign religion with this proviso: in many areas of the world religion and culture are difficult to distinguish from one another.

 

If you ask most people in the U.S., they will describe our culture as based on Christian values without realizing the history or the diversity of such values. Cultural mores change slowly over centuries rather than years - education usually gives them a push. My belief is that in many parts of the world Islam is viewed from a cultural viewpoint similarly to Christianity during the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Church lost much of its political power and had to modify its positions to retain moral power - as usual driven by outside influences.

 

I in no way support Islam or any other religion but I do feel Islam and Sharia are castigated for the wrong reasons - that Islam is another cultural-based religion that happens to be practiced in parts of the world where cultures and mores are centuries behind those in the modern mechanized Western world.

[Winstonm]

Also ISIS is not radical. It is the true Islam.

 

Ah, the inverted True Scotsman fallacy.

[billw55]

I believe Sharia Law would be human right abuses and misogyny under Western law.

Probably so. Do you think Sharia is unique in this respect? There are nontrivial Christian sects in the USA that forbid women from wearing pants. Also, in varying cases, no birth control and no divorce. Exorcisms involving beatings are less common but do happen.

 

Yes, safe to say I fear Christian theocracy and Sharia equally. I treasure the first amendment beyond price. I hope it survives.