BREAKING NEWS: Archbishop of Canterbury "full of shit"

[Geebs]

what happens when one party in a matter does not choose sharia court? or how can we be sure no intimidation has occurred?

that's an interesting point. Hadn't thought of that - might be a problem in some families.

Easy. Check if they're a woman. If so, they were probably intimidated. Turkeys voting or christmas, etc....

[shadd_]

there is no one perfect solution. sure western society is derived from christian/catholic values. i think though that today we have taken the best non-religious aspects of those values and have implemented them into todays laws that can apply to everyone regardless of religion.

could aspects of muslim culture be implemented somehow? i quess they could be if they were considered to benefit all of us and not just muslims.

[Geebs]

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

I see not too much wrong with this, and I am sympathetic with the subtext of Williams' arguments, which is that he feels unease with the hegemony of nation states.

In fact, one could make the argument that allowing for (fair and just) sharia courts is an exemplar of democracy in the true sense (rather than tyranny of the majority).

Jules, you're typical of the sort of liberal who gives liberals a bad name by not knowing what the fuck you want.

[DRuM]

Before we know it, we'll have arabs in the UK having their hands chopped off because they accidentally sat next to a person of the opposite sex in burger king.

[Massive Quasars]

DruM, m8, stop ratting on the arabs. This came from an agnostic liberal archbishop who's clearly some british mix all the way back.

[seremtan]

way to mindlessly regurgitate an emotional talking point. ffs did u actually read the bbc piece in detail?

in a society already prone to relativism and political correctness, and lacking much religious conviction, giving an open door for any group with serious and alien religious/moral convictions to push against is a very bad idea

the problem is as much homegrown as it is imported, but you play the hand you're dealt i'm afraid

[Massive Quasars]

The term relativism confuses many issues under one label as it's used colloquially.

Just because we can't agree on a host of liberal options doesn't mean we choose to pander to illiberalism in service of our meta-tolerant values. Consistency in the application of law, precision and openness in legislation, together lead to less rancorous outcomes. Ad hoccery is not called for here.

Having ethnic brits of today deciding the status of minorities is not unlike having imperial brits of the 1800s trying to distinguish hard-and-fast lines between sect and tribe in colonial Africa.

[Grudge]

Well the difference is that colonial Africa was conquered (stolen) territory, while Britain is England more or less, with a thousand years or so of history and culture.

Everyone is so damn eager to appease every single minority's quirks in the name of political correctness, so that when fucked up morals and traditions are encountered, they are not critizised for fear of being labelled as a racist or xenophobe.

[Grudge]

I see not too much wrong with this, and I am sympathetic with the subtext of Williams' arguments, which is that he feels unease with the hegemony of nation states.

Yeah, but is replacing the nation state with a conglomerate of theocracies really a viable alternative?

[Massive Quasars]

Africa was conquered, but then as now, the coercive force of government backs/would back these prescriptions and it's ultimately the ethnic brits who would have the final say in all likelyhood.

[Grudge]

well yeah, because they are still in majority, aren't they

[seremtan]

The term relativism confuses many issues under one label as it's used colloquially.

no, not really - and points deducted for assuming i was using the term colloquially

Just because we can't agree on a host of liberal options doesn't mean we choose to pander to illiberalism in service of our meta-tolerant values.

again, in english?

Consistency in the application of law, precision and openness in legislation, together lead to less rancorous outcomes. Ad hoccery is not called for here.

i don't see the relevance of this point. it's precisely that consistency in law i've been arguing for, hence not wanting sharia law "officially" recognised

Having ethnic brits of today deciding the status of minorities is not unlike having imperial brits of the 1800s trying to distinguish hard-and-fast lines between sect and tribe in colonial Africa.

it's totally and utterly unlike that in every way, and since the anti-colonial movement in africa was primarily about self-determination and sovereignty, it seems strange to claim that deciding what kind of law we shall allow (self-determination) is comparable to the very negation of self-determination

you're a bit weird sometimes, MQ

[[xeno]Julios]

Yeah, but is replacing the nation state with a conglomerate of theocracies really a viable alternative?

as i've said, these conglomerates aren't theocracies, and they only pertain to very peripheral aspects of law, and such systems already exist in britain to accomodate jewish and catholic communities.

Williams made an interesting point: If you don't have these, then muslims are more likely to take matters into their own hands "underground", where there is no guarantee that the proceedings will indeed be "fair and just".


tbh, I'm actually curious as to what aspects of sharia are being considered here - what aspects of financial and marriage law under the british system do the muslims have issue with?

[Foo]

So what you're saying is... some people won't follow the law because they disagree, so alter the laws for them so they're accomodated...

Can't see any problem there.

[Massive Quasars]

i don't see the relevance of this point. it's precisely that consistency in law i've been arguing for, hence not wanting sharia law "officially" recognised

No disagreement.

Having ethnic brits of today deciding the status of minorities is not unlike having imperial brits of the 1800s trying to distinguish hard-and-fast lines between sect and tribe in colonial Africa.

it's totally and utterly unlike that in every way, and since the anti-colonial movement in africa was primarily about self-determination and sovereignty, it seems strange to claim that deciding what kind of law we shall allow (self-determination) is comparable to the very negation of self-determination

you're a bit weird sometimes, MQ

Here's how it's similar, ethnic brits delineate cultural and religious groups and their treatment by force of law under a government that represents their majority interests. These distinctions can very easily balkanize the identified groups and lead to a host of unintended consequences.

Back in colonial Africa the groups were tribes, not altogether distinct or even settled to a plot of land, but still cut up geographically and demographically (as they appeared to imperial planners at the time). Consequently, much of what we've seen post-independence on that continent might arguably be blamed on this top-down partitioning.

[Massive Quasars]

Yeah, but is replacing the nation state with a conglomerate of theocracies really a viable alternative?

as i've said, these conglomerates aren't theocracies, and they only pertain to very peripheral aspects of law, and such systems already exist in britain to accomodate jewish and catholic communities.

Williams made an interesting point: If you don't have these, then muslims are more likely to take matters into their own hands "underground", where there is no guarantee that the proceedings will indeed be "fair and just".


tbh, I'm actually curious as to what aspects of sharia are being considered here - what aspects of financial and marriage law under the british system do the muslims have issue with?

Banks and other private or quasi-private institutions offer non-interest paying accounts for muslims that don't believe in taking advantage of such things.

As a matter of contractual agreement, a civil marriage arrangment could underlie a thoroughly religious ceremony and appease some of the particulars of tradition or rite.

[Geebs]

What you're utterly ignoring is that the british legal system has been built up over hundreds of years; Sharia has been the same since it was invented. There are many aspects which are completely unconscionable to anyone from a modern society, and no amount of wordy bullshit or wierdly irrelevant references to Africa are going to change that.

[[xeno]Julios]

What you're utterly ignoring is that the british legal system has been built up over hundreds of years; Sharia has been the same since it was invented.

according to wiki:

There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit. Based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad), (sayings and doings of the early followers of Muhammad), ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

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

There are many aspects which are completely unconscionable to anyone from a modern society, and no amount of wordy bullshit or wierdly irrelevant references to Africa are going to change that.

yes there are many heinous aspects of islamic law, but don't lump everything together:

again: did you actually read the bbc article?

In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.

At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.

He stresses that "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".

[Geebs]

That's a bit like saying that he'd like to see a bit of the Final Solution here, but not that nasty version they were practicing overseas a few years back....

To reiterate: most of the posters on this forum are scientifically trained. How many of them would base an essay on a textbook which hasn't been updated in 2000 years?

[[xeno]Julios]

That's a bit like saying that he'd like to see a bit of the Final Solution here, but not that nasty version they were practicing overseas a few years back....

how much do you really know about sharia law? Are you willing to claim that it's so unequivocally harmful that it merits a comparison with the final solution?

To reiterate: most of the posters on this forum are scientifically trained. How many of them would base an essay on a textbook which hasn't been updated in 2000 years?

please go back and read that wiki quote - there is a fuckload more to sharia than the qur'an.

[seremtan]

according to wiki:

There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit. Based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad), (sayings and doings of the early followers of Muhammad), ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent.

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

i don't think the origins of sharia or english law are at issue. fact is, sharia is religious law based on what some people think god (who may or may not exist, and may or may not care about this issue) wants people to do (oddly enough, god didn't bother laying any of this out specifically to mohammed), and designed to ensure people live they reckon god want them to even though they're pretty much making it as they go along. whereas english law is secular, and designed to preserve every person's liberty, and makes no assumptions about god

Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity...

yeah, i can see how cutting off mothers' heads in front of their kids would do that

[Immo]

A system of laws based on the Quran (yes I have read the book and don't tell me how I misinterpreted things), has no fucking place in a society with respect for women and human rights.

[busetibi]

england is run by english law, has been for centuries.
dont like it? airport.
want to live under barbaric 4th century laws? airport

stop pussy footing around with these cunts,
Enoch for PM!!
(is he still alive?)
not that it would matter, he'd still be a better PM than the choices you brits have atm.

"Rivers of Blood"
how prophetic

[[xeno]Julios]

i don't think the origins of sharia or english law are at issue. fact is, sharia is religious law based on what some people think god (who may or may not exist, and may or may not care about this issue) wants people to do (oddly enough, god didn't bother laying any of this out specifically to mohammed), and designed to ensure people live they reckon god want them to even though they're pretty much making it as they go along. whereas english law is secular, and designed to preserve every person's liberty, and makes no assumptions about god

The point I was making was in response to Geebs, who said sharia hasn't changed at all, when in fact, qur'anic (and hadithic) sources of law are only a part of the whole deal. As the wiki quote mentioned (which i'm beginning to wonder if anyone actually even read) was that the process of jurisprudence also plays a major role. Sharia is not a set in stone thing - there are many different schools of thought within the islamic community on how exactly to develop and evolve sharia law.

Its end goal is not to ensure heaven for everyone, but rather to ensure a peaceful, harmonious and successful community (whether it achieves this or not is besides the point for now).

yeah, i can see how cutting off mothers' heads in front of their kids would do that

don't be dense - capital punishment isn't unique to religous law. And Williams isn't proposing that these aspects be adopted. In fact, only a tiny tiny sliver of sharia law is what's being discussed here.

[[xeno]Julios]

A system of laws based on the Quran (yes I have read the book and don't tell me how I misinterpreted things), has no fucking place in a society with respect for women and human rights.

actually there's a lot of stuff in the qur'an that was radically progressive with respect to women's rights. And there is stuff in there which IS progressive with respect to human rights in general.

That said, there's a lot of garbage in there too.