Are we going to allow sharia law in America?

[Liberal_in_LA]

A province of Canada almost adopted sharia law a few years ago. It took massive protests from women to squelch it. Britain adopted and it's been a setback for women. Is America next? :puke:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

[saltpoint]

1. Let's do. But only in Oklahoma.

[The Magistrate]

2. No Religious Law, Ma'am, Should Under Any Circumstances In The United States

Be delegated any degree of civil or criminal jurisdiction, not even if all parties to a case desire it. Matters brought to the attention of the police as crimes should never be shifted off to private religious courts. Matters of probate can be settled by drawing up a will; where a person dies intestate, ordinary law must apply. The state legitimizes marriage, not the clergy; only the state can have the authority to dissolve it, and to determine the terms of its dissolution.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Its mutually agreed to arbitration for civil issues *ONLY*, not formally part of the legal system

The real issue is that women would be forced to agree to it vice using the secular system. There is a fair amount of backup for that concern.

There have been reports in the UK that some people would only accept the Sharia courts and not secular ones, even when the opposing party was non-muslim. Not clear is that is true or not.

Personally I think the Sharia is an affront to civilized people and should be used for kennel liners, pork product packaging, and fish wrap.

[The Magistrate]

17. If, Sir, It Takes The Form Of Any Enforceable Order The Governing Authority Must Follow Through On

No action by a religious court can be allowed in any society that is not a theocracy.

Obviously, as a matter of practical fact, the forcing of women to accept jurisdiction of a system deliberately rigged against them cannot be tolerated in any society making even a pretense of upholding human equality as a valued good. That this marks many cases where such 'courts' are recognized s beyond dispute.

People in a society do not have a right to refuse the jurisdiction of a court, any more than they have the right to refuse any other element of law in a society. If they do not wish to do either, they must absent themselves from society, either by moving outside its bounds, or accepting status as outlaws, and paying the prescribed penalties of law's enforcement.

On the basic question of Sharia law, in those societies of which it is an organic part, you go, Sir, a bit too far for my taste in your denunciation. While a great many details of Sharia codes are repugnant to me, most of these would be amenable to social evolution over time, such as has occured in the West over previous centuries. A French or English legal code from, say, the seventeenth century, would set any modern leftist's teeth on edge, and provoke cries of 'Exterminate the brutes!' in any who were hot-blooded in their feelings. The greatest root of attachment to Sharia in the post-colonial Islamic world is not the details of the codes, but the social and political function they formerly served before supplanting by colonial administrations. The Sharia codes, interpreted by respected scholars positioned in some degree independent of the monarch, served these otherwise autocratic polities as a form of constitutionalism, and were the sole check short of riot and rebellion on tyranny. It could cost a scholar his life to denounce as illegitimate a decree of the ruler, but it could cost the monarch his throne to kill him if he did. It behooved both parties to proceed carefully, and take heed of possible consequences; the result was some real mitigation at times of autocratic whim. Given the prevelance of native autocratic rule in the post-colonial Moslem world, stated preference for Sharia law is in a real sense expression of a desire for some check on the authority of rulers prone to despotic excess. It may not be the best way to achieve this, by my lights or yours, but it is the means with which the people are familiar from of old.

[bottomtheweaver]

15. It already is. Beth Din, BDA, RCA

The state lets religious bodies regulated and adjudicate marriage settlements all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din

[The Magistrate]

18. It Should Not, Sir

Nor is the existence of some wrong already to be taken as license to introduce new wrongs on top of the current supply.

[bottomtheweaver]

29. In that case, let's ban contracts, and legally binding arbitration.

If the state wants to expand its judicial apparatus to take care of every dispute, claim, grievance, and accusation brought by anybody against anybody for anything, we're going to have to empty all the prisons and turn them into courthouses.

Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea! :hi:

[The Magistrate]

37. You Are Reaching, Sir

Contracts are enforced by the state, if breached: that is the remedy, one goes to court to force compliance. Arbitration, mutually agreed on, applies existing civil law to the dispute, perhaps modified by some prior conractual agreement between the parties, and if a pary fails to abide the arbitrator's decision, the again, the civil court is appealed to. None of these things appeal to an body of law save that enacted by the democratic government.

In form these various 'religious courts' are simply arbitration agreements, but the law they apply can be quite distinct from the general civil law, and in spirit and letter hostile to it, in some matters. It is, to my view, wholy illegitimate, regardless of what religion's codes are involved. If all ar to be equal before the law, there can be only one law before which they are all equal. Noise about 'religious freedom' does not trouble me at all in this matter.

[Occam Bandage]

40. I do not think he is reaching particularly far.

Suppose two friends have a dispute. They decide between themselves that it would be best to go to an arbitrator. They voluntarily sign a contract saying they will go to the arbitrator, and they will agree to accept and honor the decision. The arbitrator presents the parties with a second contract, the terms of which represent a settling of the dispute. The two parties sign the contract. Being a contract, it is enforceable entirely through civil law. If a party fails to fulfill the terms of the agreement, the civil court system will provide redress.

How is the situation appreciably different if the contract provided by the arbitrator contains the same terms and conditions Sharia law would require? That contract need not reference Sharia law explicitly. Why should the state not honor it with the same enforcement mechanisms they would honor any contract?

[The Magistrate]

41. Unless the Contract Between The Two, Sir, Contained Elements Violating The State's Law

That would be no problem to me at all. But it is far cry from a seperate religious court. People can do any damned fool thing they want by mutual arrangement, within the bounds of civil and criminal law applying equally to all. What the state cannot rightly do, in my view, is lend any power of enforcement by the state to a decision by a religious court applying religious law in its decision.

[Occam Bandage]

43. If you would indulge me, I would like to discuss the final sentence briefly:

"What the state cannot rightly do, in my view, is lend any power of enforcement by the state to a decision by a religious court applying religious law in its decision."

I find one part of your argument as I understand it--that cases like marriage and divorce must remain the purview of civil courts entirely, with no private arrangements made--compelling. However, I don't quite understand how far you intend the quoted sentence to extend. Take again, the example I've provided. Suppose, again, no religious law is referenced explicitly in the contract, but that religious law was applied in formulating that contract. That's still people performing damned foolishness by mutual arrangement, I think. Suppose the arbitrator had a beard and called his office a Sharia court. That is entirely consistent with the example; the arbitrator can put up a sign on his storefront saying "Palace of the King of Mars and Divine Emperor of the Universe" if he feels like it. The contract now represents a decision by a religious court, and the decision followed religious law.

So now my question: when you say you don't believe the state can lend power of enforcement to a decision by a religious court applying religious law, are you saying that the example contract is not enforceable, are you saying that contracts provided by self-proclaimed "Sharia courts" are enforceable so long as they do not conflict with civil law, or have I failed to summarize your opinion?

[TheKentuckian]

3. Negative

and it would take more than a vote. You're talking Constitutional amendment, which means a religious entity/group would have to more or less completely overwhelm either the population or Congress. Pretty hard to sneak up and do.

[BlooInBloo]

4. (facepalm)

[NutmegYankee]

12. ...

[BlooInBloo]

13. Heh - I've been partial to this one....

[NutmegYankee]

14. That is great! n/t

[Mari333]

5. aint gonna happen. nt

[anonymous171]

6. No, we aren't conflict avoidant like our Eurofriends. nt

[Seldona]

7. I hope not.

I wasn't aware Britain had adopted Sharia law as well as Jewish courts. Astounding.

[Liberal_in_LA]

30. Yep. Happened a few years ago. I was stunned.

[Seldona]

45. I've been doing a little reading on how that is working out for Britian.

Can I change my answer to a hail and hearty HELL NO?

:crazy:

[Odin2005]

8. HELL NO!!!

[Canuckistanian]

9. The Shari'a law thing in Canada never had a CHANCE of being implemented

Because it was pointed out that even if both parties agreed, such as a husband and wife in a divorce, the woman could have been bullied into accepting it either by her husband or her family.

And it was not really to be considered a part of our official legal system, just sort of an "arbitrator", like they have in labor cases - to reach an agreement WITHOUT resorting to a full court case.

And it was only intended to be for a short "trial" period to see if it had the same success as the Aboriginal "Sentencing Circles".

So, no. There was never any "sharia law" in Canada.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Thank you for that clarification

[NutmegYankee]

11. That would be an official endorsement of religion. Das ist VERBOTEN!

Thank You US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[bottomtheweaver]

16. I think it scares the banks who see Sharia as a threat to business.

The marriage stuff seems pretty inconsequential as other religions have long had ecclesiastical and rabbinical courts to settle these kinds of matters.

JMHO as usual!

[applegrove]

19. We had the Sharia debate in Ontario. We had several cultural groups doling out

judgements according to customary laws. Then some muslims wanted Sharia law. The Ontario government made the tough decision to ban all customary systems of laws rather than allow that.

[Liberal_in_LA]

22. Thank goodness for the ban

[applegrove]

34. Yes. The government made the right decision.

[Occam Bandage]

20. It isn't a setback for women at all.

If they don't want to go to a sharia court, they don't have to. Sharia courts are entirely voluntary. They're no different than agreeing to go in front of Judge Judy instead of a local small-claims court.

[Liberal_in_LA]

21. The legitimacy & establishment is a legal system in the US that treats women like 2nd class citizens

would definitely be a setback. Many women would, due to pressure, ignorance, or cultural influence, use such courts and, as a result, get the shaft in court procedings. I'm not interested in seeing American women walking around in burkas or heading in the Sharia courts. It diminishes us all.

[Occam Bandage]

24. American women are allowed to wear burkas. There's no law stopping them.

Already you can have property disputes settled by Sharia law in the United States. You simply both agree to go to an arbitrator, sign contracts declaring that the decision will be binding, and agree that the arbitrator will settle the dispute using Sharia law. There. It's Sharia law, and it's legally binding. That doesn't work for all types of disputes (marriage and divorce, say), but it works for a few. Judge Judy works the same way, and is about as arbitrary.

"Pressure, ignorance, and cultural influence" are the problems. When those exist, women are subservient. When they do not, women are not. Whether the state agrees or does not agree to lend legal enforcement to private adjudicators using mutually-agreed-upon terms of conflict resolution is more or less beside the point.

[Liberal_in_LA]

27. I know women are allowed to wear burkas but I don't want any official state sponsorship

of that ignorant nonsense. Same for Sharia law, let people sneak around finagling ways to do it, through arbitration. Don't have the government officially setting up courts.

[Occam Bandage]

33. The government wouldn't be "officially setting up courts."

They'd be doing the same thing they do now with arbitration, only they'd be extending the types of cases which can be arbitrated with legally binding decisions. The courts would remain voluntary community establishments.

I find Sharia law reprehensible, but I don't particularly feel like it's my duty as an American to ensure that minority groups are unable to voluntarily act within their own cultures.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. Yes, sure. Try that in a community where you are expected

to behave according to community standards. In that world, they haven't the right to choose to take it to the secular officials. They start out disenfranchised.

[Liberal_in_LA]

28. yep

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

31. If they choose to submit themselves to the misogynistic community's demands,

they're already disenfranchised, whether a voluntary Sharia court exists or whether it doesn't.

[JerseygirlCT]

32. Except that when the only options for settling issues in the courts

are secular courts, their rights are defended - whether they are able to defend them personally or not.

When they don't have a choice about which court to use (which is likely the case quite often), no one will be defending their rights. They're done before they reach the "court".

[Occam Bandage]

36. A community that can prevent women from going to court

is a community that can prevent women from going to court, whether a separate Sharia court exists or not. The pressure might be "shut up and sign a contract declaring you want to settle this with Sharia arbitration," and it might be, "shut up, forget the lawsuit, and give the man what he wants."

I think the problem is widespread and culturally entrenched misogyny: either women are free to make their own decisions or they are slaves. The solution, then, is to tackle that problem, most likely through awareness-raising and outreach efforts among Muslim communities. Fussing over which issues people may arbitrate seems more symbolic than practical.

[backscatter712]

23. Fuck, no.

You come to the U.S., you accept U.S. laws.

People who think misogynistic fundie law, from any religion, is acceptable need to grow up.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. I remember reading about this here when this idea first surfaced

I thought it was dangerous then for exactly this reason.

The key to pushing this nonsense was that it was what these people wanted, and they'd still have access to regular courts if they preferred. I was skeptical that ALL people would have access to secular courts. Sounds like that's the case. Women are forced or intimidated into using the sharia courts, because their own insular (and encouraged to remain insular by this silliness) community thinks they must kowtow to the men in their lives.

So they are essentially disenfranchised before they even get to the sharia "court".

It's absurd, it has no place whatsoever in a democracy, and I cannot believe the Brits have been foolish enough to go for this.

[bottomtheweaver]

35. Personally, I'd take a Sharia contract over an amortized mortgage in a heartbeat.

Mortgages blow. JMHO.

[mmonk]

39. No, I think the plan is corporate dictatorship still.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Not in the near future. nt

[guardian]

44. You think Prop 8 is bad? Try sharia and the "religion of peace"

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over onto three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108-113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for "gay conduct."

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, "Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did." In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali had two people burned and that Abu Bakr had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

In contrast, Jesus Christ fulfills the severe Old Testament punishment for homosexuals (stoning), so the church now deals with this sin in a new way under the NEW Covenant—forgiveness and restoration.

If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article The article has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to "Supplemental material").