[A British judge has ruled that Muslims may choose to use Sharia law rather than Anglican law to settle disputes among Muslims]
"Obviously this judge is a total idiot! These liberal judges won't be happy until they take away all of our rights."
38 comments
"I believe Sharia law is quite the opposite of "liberal"... "
It is Joe, that's why it's so painful to see "liberals" and social democrats in Western Europe pandering to the kind of religiofascism that makes Southern Baptists seem like agreable folks.
Seperate swimming? Sure.
What a retard. How is it taking away anyone's rights to let the Muslim community have their own set of (stricter) rules that exists only within that same community? It is actually a pretty intriguing idea, and I support it (of course, it could probably fall out of favor after a few honor killings occur...ironic that letting them follow the laws of their own religion could result in their own self-destruction).
Also, I found this little gem in the article, quoted from an "Islam critic". See if you could spot the irony: "He doesn't seem to realize just how much women are devalued in Islamic Sharia law"
Sharia law is not good under any circumstances.
What about ex-Muslims? Under Sharia law, they can be killed.
One of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Sharia law is a disgusting affront to human dignity. No judge, in any country, should offer judicial approval to it, or any set of laws based on religion.
Sharia law should not be used to govern disputes among anyone in Britain anymore than the ten commandments or any other code based on tribal superstitions.
WEEEEEEEE....no separation of church and state. I guess that's what you get when you have a state religion.
I don't know if that's "liberal" though, I'm sure many "conservative" christians in the USA would love if biblical law was somehow codified.
@ Giveitaday
Any appearance of religion in the laws of a western nation must be opposed. I assume you would vehemently disagree with a Jew of Christian that wanted to use the Mosaic law in the same manner?
And just because both parties must consent does not make it fair at all. If an adulterous muslim woman consents to being stoned, that does not make it fair.
Sharia law is a lot more similar to your crazy dominionist brand of Christianity than liberalism.
Also, Muslims see Christians and Jews as "people of the book" and revere him as a prophet, not to mention that they even believe in his second coming.
Though it's not written in the ONN article (because they routinely only employ the facts that they like), the actual ruling allows that Sharia will be used to cover contract disputes and other such mundane matters. It also states that under no circumstances will unconscionable affronts to personal liberty be upheld. So there will be no death-stonings upheld here.
In the US, I also want to note, you can write into a contract that disputes will be settled following the laws of any state you want, even if neither party lives in that state.
Ordinarily, even this wouldn't be enough to satisfy me, but you have to remember that Britain's national law is rooted in the Christian tradition. Thus, if Muslims were to "follow the law of their country" they would be subjected to law of a religion that they don't support.
All of this is irrelevant anyway; I submitted the quote because the Christian fundie is announcing that his rights are being taken away, when in reality, no such thing is even close to happening.
Fuck Sharia law and fuck anybody that defends it!
I have seen first hand what it produces. A woman chained in a small room by her neck that has been pissed and deficated on and used as the town fuck bag. Why? Because she accused her brother-in-law for rape and her husban took his brothers side. Fuck that bull shit!
I understand that this only covers contract law, but IMO its just a starting point.
Is marriage a contract? Well I've used the argument that it is, in order to support homosexual marriage.
Does that mean if a woman signs a contract, that it can be voided because under Sharia law, she has no right to sign a contract?
The guy's right in a way, it is the Liberal judges that allow stuff like this in. Why is one nation one law considered unfair?
Er, the judge didn't make any sort of a ruling. He merely offered an opinion, i.e. that Sharia could be used in civil arbitration in much the same way that Orthodox Jews currently use the Jewish Court whose name escapes me, or indeed any two people who have a civil dispute may appoint a mutually-agreeable third party to arbritrate between them.
OMG, the sky is not falling after all!!!
He didn't rule so, he just mooted that in civil cases Sharia law may be considered if both parties agreed, as now happens in some jewish cases. This overlooks the problem of the power structure that obtains most obviously between men and women but also between other parties.
I hope he was only trying to open debate to allow it to be critiqued.
Personally, I don't feel that religious rules have any place in civil or criminal law, it's too fraught with prejudice and fear.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
