Sharia Law in USA?

[ThisYouWillDo]

LONDON (Reuters) - Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, said on Thursday the introduction in Britain of some aspects of sharia, Islamic law, was unavoidable.

His unexpected comments were welcomed by some Muslim groups, but the government was quick to distance itself from them, saying it was out of the question that the principles of sharia could be used in British civil courts.

What would the reaction be had Frank Griswold made that statement in USA?

TYWD

[Whippett]

I'm by no means well versed in the subject - but I seem to recall a discussion around the time of Suleiman th Great concerning sharia - as I remember (and I could be wrong) sharia was deemed not appropriate for countries that were not ruled by "the faithful" and that sharia was reserved only for those countries where the "faithful" ruled, but that all in countries where sharia was in force the entire populace were bound by the rules of sharia.

It strikes me as worrying that any country not ruled by Islam would ever consider adding sharia to its legal system in any way. Frankly, religious law has no place in the governance of a secular society.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I'm by no means well versed in the subject - but I seem to recall a discussion around the time of Suleiman th Great concerning sharia ...

... and I thought I was old ...

lol

Do you think the Archbishop has a hidden agenda? Special pleading for all religious groups?

TYWD

[Whippett]

... and I thought I was old ...

lol

Do you think the Archbishop has a hidden agenda? Special pleading for all religious groups?

TYWD

I look a lot younger - lol - but, why, I remember back when Sulieman was just a young pup - lol

I don't know, TYWD - but the "fair play" attitude the Anglican church has taken over the past few years makes me wonder if it isn't just a little weak-kneed political correctness - making our "brothers of the muslim faith" feel a little more at home. If it is, it's misguided. I've always believed that if I move to a country with different laws I should learn and abide by those laws - not try and impose my own just because I feel more comfortable with them.

Reminds me a lot of the attitudes of some rich folk who move to the country because of the ambiance - then get control of the county council to push through bye-laws banning those nasty smelly dairy farms. If you move somewhere and don't like the atmosphere - no-one is forcing you to stay - either live with it (and learn to like it) or move.

[Thorne]

Frankly, religious law has no place in the governance of a secular society.

This is the true danger of the Islamic system. It seems to be an all or nothing proposition. If you embrace Islam you must embrace the idea of the government submitting to the church. This has proven to be disastrous, for the general populations if not the ruling classes, throughout history.

To my way of thinking, with the preponderance of Christian faiths in the US, any attempt to impose the Sharia would result in a general uprising against both Islam and the government. Hell, we damned near have civil war over the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, or of Christmas pageants in public schools!

[mkemse]

What would the reaction be had Frank Griswold made that statement in USA?

TYWD

Many in the US may not agree but we have freedom of expression that is all that matters and with the exception of 2 things in our laws NOT covered by the US contitution as freedom of speach people here can say virutaly anything they want without fear of arrrest, how the church would react is a whole different questionin itself
Again the United StatesContitution guarantees freedon of speech and expression except for 2 simple things that cannot be said without being arrested

[rce]

In the early Middle Ages, countries in Europe had different laws for people of different ethnical and religious groups. Those who used to be Roman citizens could still live by Roman law, while the Germanic peoples lived by German law, and there were different rules depending on whether people were Christian or not.

The territorial principle soon prevailed, though. While there could still be different laws within the same country, the same law applied to everyone alike in the same parts of each country.

I would say Europe has already tried the Archbishop's idea, but gave it up centuries ago - for good reasons. Law is about being able to foresee what consequences your actions may have. This is possible if the law is the same within the same tract of land, but not if the law differs depending on whom you are dealing with regardless of territorial borders.

[Euryleia]

On the subject:
Violations of 'Islamic teachings' take deadly toll on Iraqi women
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/...rss_topstories
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Crimes against women in Iraq's south have included killings and amputations
Police chief: "Two women were killed in front of their kids"
Not wearing headscarves, other violations of "Islamic teachings" bring crimes

[ThisYouWillDo]

I don't think the Archbishop envisaged stonings, amputations and floggings for UK Moslems. Nor would he advocate polygamy or the compulsory wearing of a headscarf. The sharia is a code which is open to interpretation; not all Moslem countries apply sharia in their legal system, but of those that do, only a very few - and, I have to say it, the most backward - apply the harshest penalties.

That said, a Common Law legal system which treats all people as more or less equal will be severely undermined if new, alien, standards are introduced which apply to just one section of the population, especially where rights of appeal are limited or non-existent, and where the value of evidence given by women is half the value of evidence given by men.

I learn that Canada tried to introduce Islamic Law into matrimonial disputes between Moslems, but that these attempts were crushed by Moslem women's groups for reasons such as this.

That said, although the British legal systems are predominantly secular nowadays, they do already recognise the binding application of Canon Law within the Church, and Rabbinical Courts for matters affecting the Jewish faith. But these laws and courts are primarily for the administration of ecclesiastic/rabbinical matters rather than governing private individuals' everyday personal affairs.

Nevertheless, there are inequalities that exist here that seem to bear most heavily on the Moslem population. For example, it used only to be possible, in England & Wales, to be married by a Registrar of Marriages except where the wedding took place in a church belonging to the Church of England. My wife is Catholic: we had to invite a registrar to attend our wedding so that it would be "legal". But my wife would not have felt properly "married" if she hadn't had a full nuptial Mass.

I understand that nowadays all Christian priests and ministers, and Jewish rabbis too, have the "civil" power to marry people, but I also believe immans do not have such powers.

Nevertheless, voluntary "Sharia Councils" exist and are permitted which already deal with matrimonial mattters, and, once they decide an issue, the parties concerned rarely try to enforce their legal rights to override that decision.

There are many other issues, too, and I fear I have oversimplified the ones I have discussed. The matter is highly complex.

However, I believe that, on balance, the established law of the land must always prevail, and while cultural differences can be accomodated, this must not be at the expense of anyone's rights and liberties.

TYWD

[gagged_Louise]

Lots of good points there, TYWD. Of course it's very hard to envisage islamic courts operating within a common law system.

It's quite surprising that the Archbishop, as he put it himself to a friend after the news broke, "had no idea that this would cause so much attention". The thought of imams setting up their own courts and passing judgment on the matters of muslims here in the West, and of those courts having the right to exact punishments, that's the very stuff that raises the neck hair of many ordinary people, and a prime focus of right-wing parties such as the French Front National or Berlusconi's party in Italy. And it's a fear that is shared by many muslim women. The real wish of Front National and others is to throw out the "Arabs", and the spectre of local courts that would be able to hold "Qu'ranic trials" underpins just that wish.
a
Of course sharia law doesn't always mean chopping off hands and having public floggings and stonings of adulterous women, but there is no definite idea of just what counts as sharia law- trhere are several schools and ways of ruling from the Qu'ran - so a straight recognition that sharia courts are valid could be seen to invite that kind of thing. Besides, how do you define who is a muslim and should be subject to islamic law? We can't enlist all who come from an islamic country to a system of islamic courts and demand of them that they should live under what those courts decide, under their jurisdiction, can we? That would be like creating a kind of "muslim state church" though it would be free to formally leave it. The more I think about this, the more disjointed it seems, the groundwork of the remarks of Archbishop Williams.

There was a suggestion recently in Sweden, from the secretary for higher education, to provide for a public "imam college" to foster a corps of imams that would be trained within the country and recognized here - under some kind of supervision from University/Education authorities - and maybe to demand, in time, that you have to be a "certified imam" (having studied here or in some other Western country) to hold a higher office at a mosque. The proposed "imam exam" would include some acquaintance with civil and criminal law as it is practised here, and with the ideas of secularism.

That would be a way, among many, to avoid muslim groups closing in on themselves and then having the big mosques becoming centers of exile politics and hardline islamism (like the Birmingham Mosque in the UK, or some mosques in Paris). The people who set the tone at those places sre sometimes really preaching and living as if they were still in Pakistan or Egypt. Seems a useful idea to me, remains to be seen what the muslims think...