Harry's Place

Stoned to Death http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8366197.stm

Where is the outrage. Shariah Law? No thanks! We’re more civilised than that

One Law for All is also against the Beth Din and other religious courts

If folks want to choose to live by a particular code of practice, what’s wrong with there being an authority that manages that code of practice?

One Law for All’s position is akin to saying ‘I want to join the golf club but I’ll use my own rules. Pass the shotgun.”

If Muslims want to live by Sharia, then it’s their choice. Religious courts are only a problem if they try and force their rules on folks who aren’t members of the club. The Beth Din have no authority over anyone who doesn’t acknowledge it.

Greg, exactly.

The preposterous pretence of the intolerent militant “secularists” (who in the most odious of cases – such as, from that list, Sanderson and Hari, are not secularists so much as they are anti-theist and amoral materialists) that they have no religion that they wish to force down other people’s throats (only because it is not currently termed a “religion”) is nauseating

“One Law for All is also against the Beth Din and other religious courts”

Whataboutery as an alibi against accusations of not being truly
leftwing.

Arfur, your interesting link reports of one woman stoned to death, and three men stoned to death.

So, why does the article hedline mention only the female victim, rather thn all 4 victims of stoning?

This is the same problem reflected in Mamazie’s satement, “Our rally is being held to mark Universal Children’s Day and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.”

In other words, victims of sharia are to be divided, with objections only to shari violence agains females and children? Why are male victims of stoning or lashing of lesser importance than female and chldren? They’re not necessarily lesser in number.

The role of sharia in resticting women’s rights is clear. But a victim is a victim, and male victims of sharia have a right as well to protest on their behalf. They are (or were) human beings, too.

Greg

If Muslims want to live by Sharia, then it’s their choice. Religious courts are only a problem if they try and force their rules on folks who aren’t members of the club. The Beth Din have no authority over anyone who doesn’t acknowledge it.

I think this is quite correct.

Not again!

I start reading and thinking “this seems good. I’ll go along”. Then, once again, I see this name:-

“Maryam Namazie”

A communist. Someone with a totalitarian and Utopian world-view every bit as vile as the Islamists she opposes.

What is it about the far left?

Why must they always hide behind ostensibly respectable causes?

And why do those causes discredit themselves by tolerating them?

This is a minor observation and totally besides the point, but if a StWC or Respect rally featured a poet by the name ‘AK47′ on the platform isn’t there a strong chance that Harry’s Place would take the piss? Just Saying.

Ven apart from the bit about Beth Din (which is possibly just badly expressed but if not then your comments are right) do you not agree with.

Secularism is by definition pluralist and cannot be rammed down anyone’s throughts. Are you seriously suggesting that those behind this campaign are trying to prohibit religious belief or force anyone to do anything?

It should be axiomatic for any of a broadly liberal/progressive persusation and I am not worried that my liberties are going to be eroded by secularists – quite the contrary.

Then, once again, I see this name:- “Maryam Namazie”

I didn’t even get that far. As soon as I saw Hari’s name I knew this would be nonsense.

If folks want to choose to live by a particular code of practice, what’s wrong with there being an authority that manages that code of practice?

Caravanning is a code of practice. Murderous medieval religious bullshittery is not a “code of practice”.

Besides, as history as shown, people who live by “particular codes of practice” ALWAYS end up trying to enforce their superstitious bullshit on other people by force.

“If Muslims want to live by Sharia, then it’s their choice. Religious courts are only a problem if they try and force their rules on folks who aren’t members of the club. The Beth Din have no authority over anyone who doesn’t acknowledge it.”

Nobody is trying to STOP them from choosing that. Anybody wishing to live by sharia can do so – in private. No need for the state to agree to enforce the rulings of religious bodies. That’s secularism.

Personally I would be happier if the whole concept of sharia was junked but I’m not going to force that on anybody. I am not, however, willing to stand by and see a legal system based upon medieval superstition forced on people either.

I’ve donated money to this cause and I would encourage anybody who believes in universal rights and secularism to do the same:

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate/

Reza V
18 November 2009, 5:37 pm

“Maryam Namazie”

A communist. Someone with a totalitarian and Utopian world-view every bit as vile as the Islamists she opposes.

Why must they always hide behind ostensibly respectable causes?

ANSWER: historically proven effective way to sucker the naive and uninformed into anything

Greg
18 November 2009, 5:03 pm

One Law for All is also against the Beth Din and other religious courts

If folks want to choose to live by a particular code of practice, what’s wrong with there being an authority that manages that code of practice?

How often is living by such code a fully free choice vs pressure to conform? Not long ago, an Orthodox Jewish woman had to take her former husband to the Supreme Court of Canada to compell him to live up to the promise he made, prior to marrying him, to provide her with the requisite ghet if they were to later divorce. It took 10 years for the process to complete, at which time the woman’s ability to bear children was gone and her chances of finding a suitable mate probably diminished too.

We reject all religious laws and courts, including those inspired by Judaist and Christian fundamentalism.

Christian law and court? What’s that when it’s at home, and why associate it with Protestants who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? If anything theocratic tendencies (if you can even call them that) have been most historically associated with the Orthodox Church, such as in Byzantium, or the modern Vatican City. Nothing to do with Prod Bible bashers. Or is “fundamentalist” now just an all embracing empty boo word like “fascist” has become?

The battle against Sharia is against both the Islamists and the far-right;

No it isn’t. The far right have nothing to do with Sharia, other than using at as a bugbear in their own rhetoric, that they’re agin it. Nor are they anti-secularist. Nor do they support some Christian (or otherwise) analogue of Sharia. You may as well say that the fight against Sharia is against both Islamists and Communists. Would be just as [un]true.

I live too far away to attend, but am mostly behind this.

Greg: If Muslims want to live by Sharia, then it’s their choice.

Naive. The trouble with Sharia is that it is far too often coercion, rather that choice. In the West, women in particular, often with little of no knowledge of their rights under the law of the land, are shamed, cajoled, threatened and forced into discarding their rights and submitting to their menfolk and the discriminatory jurisprudence of Sharia. If asked whether they submit to Sharia judgements voluntarily, most will say so – like the supplicants to Capone, they know what’s good for them in the Godfather culture of Islam.

In Muslim countries, there is rarely even a theoretical choice. Sharia courts may (and do) override civil courts – even for non-Muslims. If you don’t believe me, go to Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and try exercising your freedom of speech on matters Political or Islamic. Try wearing a crucifix or carrying a Bible. As a foreign national you may get lucky and be thrown out of the country, as a local you may not see the light of day again.

However, reluctantly, I must concur with you on the likes of Hari and Tatchell and their religion-lite Marxist ideology.

If Muslims want to live by Sharia, then it’s their choice. Religious courts are only a problem if they try and force their rules on folks who aren’t members of the club. The Beth Din have no authority over anyone who doesn’t acknowledge it.

Its Local Laws for Local People! In the UK we are a Judadeo-Christian ethics and law base. The concept of Shariah is alien to our culture. Yes, I said it! Alien!

While there is a Beth Din it only administers Judaic law for a miniscule number of Jews from the Jewish Community. It has a monopoly over giving a get but its a quaint piece of Judaic law.

Shariah Law seems to deny women’s rights.

I once argued (or was it my alter ego) that I could tolerate Shariah Law Courts as long as a non-Muslim solicitor/barrister were appointed to attend to record proceedings and ensure the UK Law was not being compromised. Also, an appeal could be made through this solicitor/barrister if a judgement by one party was not acceptable. The solicitor/barrister would stop a proceeding if UK law was being broken.

Besides, as history as shown, people who live by “particular codes of practice” ALWAYS end up trying to enforce their superstitious bullshit on other people by force.

Frequently true, but not always, and not limited to religion. Politics is frequently shoved down the throats of others, and it’s this aspect of religion that’s most distasteful and most often abused. Islamists (or medieval Christians) didn’t put infidels to the sword for the sake of theology, they did it for the sake of power and politics, in a fashion no different from Mao’s cultural revolution, Nazism, Communism. Religion may be the excuse proffered for lopping someone’s head off, but I don’t think it’s the cause.

No need for the state to agree to enforce the rulings of religious bodies

There are two types of law enforced in the courts, criminal and civil. Civil law is heavily based on case law and prescedent and is concerned with the relationship between individuals (whereas criminal law is concerned with the relationship between state and individual).

Quite a lot of civil law comes down to asking the court to judge on the interpretation of an agreement between two individual parties. Frequently this agreement is in the form of a written contract (contract law). Frequently it’s an unwritten but tangible agreement nevertheless (e.g. duty of care/negligence).

Asking a civil court to adjudicate on a religious matter is not much different from that. By being a member of a religion you’ve signed up to its stated terms and conditions. If you break those terms and conditions you may have a case to answer. The difference between this and, say, a negligence claim, is that you could always say ‘nuts to this’ and quit the religion. And if you’re Henry VIII, start your own.

How often is living by such code a fully free choice vs pressure to conform?

Agreed, a lot of religion is pressure to conform. And one’s ability to culturally/legally/physically leave a religion varies by age/geography/sex. But in a Western country, like the UK, where this protest is occuring, individuals do have the ability to leave a religion and live a secular life free of harassment by the state. If a local culture prevents that, it’s the fault of the local culture, not the religion per se.

Not long ago, an Orthodox Jewish woman had to take her former husband to the Supreme Court of Canada to compell him to live up to the promise he made, prior to marrying him, to provide her with the requisite ghet if they were to later divorce.

Provision of a Get is an Orthodox Jewish matter; she was free to divorce secularly I assume. Her need of a Get was solely down to her requirement to remain an Orthodox Jew if she remarried. If she was prepared to no longer be classified as an Orthodox Jew, she had no problem. If she wanted to stay in the club then she had to stay within its rules. Her ability to go to a civil court and force a Get is surely a good thing, is it not? I’m not sure you can blame the speed of civil courts on religion.

Naive. The trouble with Sharia is that it is far too often coercion, rather that choice.

As I said in my original comment, when courts force themselves on others that’s a problem – so we agree on that point. But the problem isn’t the concept of a religious court, it’s the fact that somebody wants to shove a particular concept down someone else’s throat. Are you proposing to ban cars because some folk crash?

I’d quite like to buy a bottle of whiskey from Tescos at 10pm on a Sunday night.

What stops me?

Whataboutery as an alibi against accusations of not being truly
leftwing.

Or a defence against Islamophobia. But the Orthodox Beth Din in the UK is notoriously rubbish. It’s down to them I can’t get a decent kosher steak in the UK. It’s more of a bloody protectionist racket. Of course, I can always go off-piste, as it were. It’s my choice to stay on-side.

“What stops me?”

An frustrating and stupid archaic, anachronistic religious law that secularists are trying to do away with, rather than extend to other religious areas or religious groups.

“By being a member of a religion you’ve signed up to its stated terms and conditions. If you break those terms and conditions you may have a case to answer.”

Few make that choice as adults – it’s a childhood imposition.

“The difference between this and, say, a negligence claim, is that you could always say ‘nuts to this’ and quit the religion.”

Provided, of course, that you can leave the religion and opt for a secular life.

I have no objection to people settling their disputes under any system, including tossing a coin, that they are all happy to abide by.

But some aspects are just not acceptable. Including the following:

1. The pressure on our legislators to recognise such judgements, and enforce them using the weight of the common law. If sharia is a purely voluntary arbitration system, why does the secular court system have to take any account of a sharia judgement in any subsequent appeal?

2. It should be illegal for a sharia court to hear any case involving minors, or vulnerable parties who are unable to give informed consent.

3. It should be illegal for a sharia court to hear any criminal case.

I’d quite like to buy a bottle of whiskey from Tescos at 10pm on a Sunday night.

What stops me?

Judging from your recent comments at Guidos, the answer is obviously… “The Jews”.

Greg:

The woman got her secular divorce, but was unable to remarry within her faith which is a gross unfairness to an innnocent party. He, on the other hand, faced no similar constraint.

The Beth Din had no jurisdiction to compel the SOB she divorced to comply with the domestic contract he entered into prior to marriage in which he promised to provide a ghet in the event of a divorce and the lower courts thought they lacked jurisdiction to intervene in what they ruled to be enforcement of religious law. It took 10 years and referral to the highest court to deal with the matter on the basis of contract law.

If you can’t see the ugliness in such a situation, and why its best avoided, you aren’t looking very hard. I was a little dismayed when Ontario withdrew the recognition it gave in the early 1990s to Beth Dins and Catholic Family Courts as venues for alternate dispute resolutions so as to avoid having to do the same for Sharia courts a few years back, but after hearing of this Montreal woman’s situation, I was not so sorry.

I have rarely come across someone like Greg,who can talk utter, uninformed and naive nonsense with such self-assuredness. Does he really believe that people who suffer the worst excesses of sharia actually volunteer to do so? Does anybody believe that men and women are treated even-handedly under sharia? Removing your head from your anus and actually doing some reading is strongly recommended.

BTW, is the Archbishop of Canterbury expected at the the rally?

It’s rather interesting that they want to talk about the affinity between the far right and those who wish to impose Islamic law.

I would imagine it’s the far left who are bending over backwards to accommodate the Islamo-Fascists.

What Muslims believe in their own words….from BBC World Service:

Jews are out to dominate the world, Islam is a religion of peace that accommodates all other religions and there is no compulsion in Islam:

It is obligatory on Muslims that they set up an Islamic state, an independent and completely Islamic state. Iran is the main candidate for what an Islamic state would look like. Muslims are feeling both spiritually and psychologically that they have to realise the Caliphate again.

The way forward for Islam is the way back to Sharia.

Is the objective of re-instating the Caliphate which would entail conquest and conversion of the rest of the world an obligation on Muslims and is that what it will take? Answers were unanimous….Oh yes indeed…we have the concept of Jihad…striving to spread Islam in the cause of god by word and sword. So you will find every true Muslim is always a missionary. So we try to convert the world. That is our objective…one state, one religion, one Umma.

Islam splits the world in two…Islamic countries…the abode of peace and non-Islamic…abode of war…so all non-Islamic countries are potentially at war with Islam.
Now it is true that we have a state of war with the world, but it is a war of ideology. If you have a mission to convert the world then you are at war with all the ideologies which are opposed to you. If you take the idea of war in terms of converting people to the Islamic faith then that’s a tradition in Islam.

We have an obligation to pass on the message of what we believe to other people. In any non-Muslim country we feel that we should be allowed to spread these beliefs freely. If they forbade us then we would have to declare a state of Jihad against that country.
But……Christians, as People of the Book, can live in Muslim countries as long as they do not proselytise or become missionaries.

Jews and Christians…they have both perverted the scriptures entrusted to them for their own purposes….they deviated from their own scriptures and stopped following the actual commandments of God and changed their religions.

There can scarcely be a more serious offence in Islam than shirk….associating something with God that is not God as the Muslims claim Christians do with the Holy Trinity. The elevation of Christ to the position of a God is something that we cannot accept, and we do not accept it. Christ is a human being.

The Koran tells us that Christ did not die on the Cross, nor are we born with original sin….that means Christians are a living contradiction of Islam….living an account of human nature which is false.

I would be very happy as a Muslim living in England to have half the rights that the Copts have in Egypt.

What would you do supposing you are in a majority in some country where non-Muslims were living?….Here we are on sticky ground. I don’t think I can really answer that….not because I think we would have to kill them all but there must be some way it would be dealt with…..perhaps they need to pay a special tax to continue to live their own way. I don’t know how free the would be to practise their religion or what efforts there would be to convert them or to rectify their belief in a way that is acceptable to us. It is our duty to set a limit to what people are saying adversely about our creator in the way they worship him.

We have a tradition of reverent scepticism in Islam.
Any person who leaves the house of Islam and then actively pursues an ideological enmity towards Islam, his action would be defined as treason in Islamic law. There is no distinction between religious and political authority in Islam so treason and apostasy are the same crime.

Greg – your neat summary represents unadulterated barbarism in a nut shell:

“If Muslims want to live by Sharia, then it’s their choice. Religious courts are only a problem if they try and force their rules on folks who aren’t members of the club. The Beth Din have no authority over anyone who doesn’t acknowledge it”

What makes you think all Muslims want to live under Sharia law!!?? Have you not noticed the protests of thousands of people in Iran who do not want to live under Sharia law? They don’t want it to be imposed on them any more than we do in Italy and Britain, and the islamists have every intention of establishing Sharia world wide. Only brute force can make you submit to that law. You are able to write that statement about sharia without worrying your labotimised brain about the violence and cruelty inflicted under sharia. There is also such a thing as “identification with the agressor,” which applies to people locked in the sharia system as well as to most Germans who were trapped in their country under Hitler. Would you say, “If Gernans wanted to live under Hitler so be it?”

Silly cow is child’s play comapred to the epithets that should be applied to you. You are a stupoid macho ox with no brains masquerading as a master of logic. Sharia is deeply mysogynist in the worst sense it and it is ordained for the most part by men, who should be razed off the face of the earth. They kill their own children. My sister knew a French doctor who worked in a hospital in Afghanistan, and he said the cruelties inflicted on Taliban wives were the sheerest nightmare.

The affinity between the far right and Islamists and Sharia Law????? What? It’s the frickin’ far lefties that have all the love for them islamists and sharia purveyors. This blog has done sterling work covering it.

I’m betting this is just gonna be a wankfest.

I can see some merit in the ‘people are free to leave their religion’ argument. It is indeed true that anyone in this country is free to leave their religion, to join another, or none.

Despite this, I think we should fight any attempts to legitimise Shari’a courts. Any court that cannot guarantee equal treatment of men and women (which I do not believe Shari’a courts can) does not deserve moral, or any other, equivalence with UK laws. There can be an element of coercion involved, and we have protect those who may be struggling to assert their right to be dealt with fairly by their faith community.

What makes you think all Muslims want to live under Sharia law!!??

I don’t and that’s not what I said. Plenty of Muslims don’t want to live under Sharia and they don’t. They live in a secular democracy or elsewhere where Sharia law isn’t enforced by the state. In the UK, a Muslim can choose to live under Sharia, and if they do they make themselves, by their own choice, liable to a Sharia court.

If you can’t see the ugliness in such a situation

Oh don’t get me wrong I don’t like the rules laid down by an Orthodox Beth Din, but then I’m not a member of the club (any more) so I don’t have to play their games.

Does he really believe that people who suffer the worst excesses of sharia actually volunteer to do so?

Hang on a sec let’s not get carried away. The context of this post, and my comments, are about the applicability of Sharia or other religious law in this county the UK. In the UK adherence to Sharia or whatever is a choice. Yes, I agree there are lots of folks who suffer at the hands of Sharia in foreign countries and there’s very little that I find to commend it, what with lots of it being racist, misogynistic and medieval. But I don’t accept the argument that in the UK, there are large numbers of folks who are forced into it and have to accept its rulings. It may be very difficult to walk away from a culture but in this country it is possible. And as a libertarian, I respect folks’ rights to subject themselves to it. Is it any worse than smoking? Don’t know, don’t care, it’s their choice. And if it isn’t then they should be packing their bags.

“This protest has nothing to do with the English Defence League – we repudiate them;”
Why? It is not the most sophisticated organization in the world but its heart is in the right place. It has signs saying “white and black unite”.

Presumably, however, Communist Totalitarianism is OK, then? I mean after all, Maryam Namazie does represent the Communist Party of Iran — not mentioned in the article above. Perhaps she could speak to the 400 million “not born” in Communist China in part due the forced abortions and crimes against humanity to women by Communists?

I have a lot of trouble with a Communist led rally for “universal human rights.” I ask Maryam Namazie to start with Communist China and North Korea.

Let’s please get someone credible to challenge Sharia laws genuine threat to universal human rights. Another woman was stoned to death in Somalia today.

Surely we can get a more credible advocate for human rights than a leader from a Communist party, while another 1.3+ billion are suffering from oppression by Communists!

Greg: If folks want to choose to live by a particular code of practice, what’s wrong with there being an authority that manages that code of practice?

You mean by brainwashing their children into a gutter faith and scaring the bejesus out of them to perpetuate an irrational, intolerant, racist and authoritarian ideology and meme – is “by choice”?

How can an individual grow up in through such odious Islamic indoctrination and still live by choice?

As long as apostasy is punishable by death – there is no choice.

And how do you know its by choice when there is no empirical method of assessment, and furthermore, they have not been exposed to the alternatives?

What an idiot, you and Venichka.

Greg – excuse my insults, I was just playing with counteracting mysogyny with some anti-male language.

I was expecting a reply and didn’t really believe you meant what you said exactly as I understood it. I’m still a bit puzzled. Living far away, I don’t know everything that’s going on in Britain. According to you, people are legally allowed to live under Sharia in Britain if they choose to do so. (The motivations for such a choice are a chapter in themselves). Does this mean that enclaves of people from another culture can establish their own laws, or are they subject to British law, if they murder or beat up their wives. Does this transplanted Sharia include all the horrors? If they beat up – not to speak of killing -gays within their community, surely they will be subject to British law? Orthodox Jews in Britain can follow their customs peacefully. If people in these particular Muslim enclaves scream about eliminatimg free speech (see HP video) and express an absolute determination to kill Jews, impose Sharia on the whole of Britain, I don’t doubt that you would find them a distrubung presence.

Mettaculture said feminists *had* to step over to this thread – so I’m complying dutifully. I agree that Sharia law (or some interpretations of it) seems to have particularly negative consequences for women but that male victims shouldn’t be sidelined. The only things I’ve heard about in the context of the Beth Din are the issues mentioned here – kosher food and the ‘get’. I can’t see any harm in the former – everyone is free to ignore the rulings at any time. I understand that the ‘get’ issue leads to unhappiness – but it doesn’t seem terribly different from the power the Anglican or Catholic Church has to marry you or not as it sees fit (say if you are a divorcee). Going back to Sharia – I think the issue of coercion (perhaps particularly of women) is significant though also problematic. Presumed coercion is also invoked as a reason for stopping women wearing the hijab in certain contexts – personally, although I accept that there may be pressure on some women in the West to wear the hijab, I think it’s too great an infringement on people’s freedom to say you shouldn’t wear religious head coverings/symbols. The potentially worrying thing about Sharia law in the UK is that (I believe) it wants to make judgements about issues to do with custody and also about criminal cases. Here’s a link to a useful piece posted at Butterflies and Wheels. http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2920

You mean by brainwashing their children into a gutter faith and scaring the bejesus out of them to perpetuate an irrational, intolerant, racist and authoritarian ideology and meme – is “by choice”?

It’s clear you’re anti-religion and I’m not denying some of the points you are making. But that’s not strictly what this post or my comments are about. I am not being pro-religion, I am being pro-libertarian. If folks want to abide by a code of rules then it’s reasonable there are folks who get to determine the application of those rules. You may not like those rules but you don’t have to join their club. As for indoctrination of minors, yes I agree that’s an issue, but that’s not endemic to all religions and all communities; and indoctrination is hardly a problem confined to religion.

I was expecting a reply and didn’t really believe you meant

As I understand it (I’m not a lawyer) it’s rather like being a member of a club or society which has its own by-laws, like a golf club. These by-laws don’t replace the laws of the land (you can’t murder someone on a golf course, despite the temptation re slow players) but if a by-law says if you hit a ball out-of-bounds you have to take a 2 shot penalty, then the club can enforce that rule in accordance with its by-laws and if you refuse to comply they can chuck you out. There is nothing stopping you (or the club) seeking redress (through damages) in the civil courts of the UK if a party deems itself to have suffered a loss unreasonably (akin to any contract or tort dispute).

In the UK the first level of civil court is the County Court. Depending on size of the damages being sought you may go directly to the next level of court – the High Court. If a party is granted permission to appeal from the High Court you may go to the Appeals Court (and as of very recently the next and highest level of court is the Supreme Court, which was the House of Lords until last month).

So if you are members of the Orthodox Jew club, your ‘rules and policies committee’ is the Beth Din. As long as you want to officially be a member of the community (you need a piece of paper which says your parents were married in an Orthodox synagogue, or something similar) you’re subject to the rules and regulations laid down by the Beth Din. Obviously they don’t replace the laws of the land (the criminal laws). But a dispute might still arise which one may seek judgement on in a civil court (e.g. the recent case of a Jewish school refusing to admit a child because the Beth Din didn’t acknowledge the conversion to Judaism of the child’s mother and hence didn’t acknowledge that the child was Jewish).

Re Sharia, I guess it’s the same. A Sharia court may decide what is or isn’t correct within the bounds of the adherence of Islam, but they don’t get to replace the laws of the land (I hope!). Sharia might say ‘death to apostates’ but they wouldn’t get to apply that – the most they could do is excommunicate someone (again, I hope that’s all they’d be able to do). I’m far more familiar with the Beth Din and Orthodox law and there’s not much which contradicts the law of the land, given how, it seems, 90% of it is regulations on keeping kosher….

An issue that has not been touched upon is what is actually meant by Shari’a. Ziauddin Sardar, in his essay Rethinking Islam has written rather cogently on this issue

Most Muslims consider the Shari`ah, commonly translated as ‘Islamic law’, to be divine. Yet, there is nothing divine about the Shari`ah. The only thing that can legitimately be described as divine in Islam is the Qur’an. The Shari`ah is a human construction; an attempt to understand the divine will in a particular context. This is why the bulk of the Shari`ah actually consists of fiqh or jurisprudence, which is nothing more than legal opinion of classical jurists. The very term fiqh was not in vogue before the Abbasid period when it was actually formulated and codified. But when fiqh assumed its systematic legal form, it incorporated three vital aspects of Muslim society of the Abbasid period. At that juncture, Muslim history was in its expansionist phase, and fiqh incorporated the logic of Muslim imperialism of that time. The fiqh rulings on apostasy, for example, derive not from the Qur’an but from this logic. Moreover, the world was simple and could easily be divided into black and white: hence, the division of the world into Daral Islam and Daral Harb. Furthermore, as the framers of law were not by this stage managers of society, the law became merely theory which could not be modified – the framers of the law were unable to see where the faults lay and what aspect of the law needed fresh thinking and reformulation. Thus fiqh, as we know it today, evolved on the basis of a division between those who were governing and set themselves apart from society and those who were framing the law; the epistemological assumptions of a ‘golden’ phase of Muslim history also came into play. When we describe the Shari`ah as divine, we actually provide divine sanctions for the rulings of by-gone fiqh.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/sardar01.htm

I think the last sentence I emphasised is pertinent in this discussion of the appropriateness of so-called Shari’a Courts.

What is worrying is the opening that allowing such Courts provides precisely for an archaic, reactionary interpretation of Islam in general and Shari’a in particular.

It is precisely the deeply medievalist, anti-progressive and expansionist interpretation of Islamism that upholds the notion of Shari’a as something fixed, universal in its application, unchanging and amenable to court-like procedures.

As Professor Sadar demonstrates this is a construct the deprives Islamic religious law of its ability to regenerate, develop and – crucially – shed exactly the objectionable elements that posters here have rightly pointed up.

The rejecting of Shari’a courts is not a rejection if Islam; rather it is a rejection of the narrow-minded, medieval, anti-humane interpretations of Islamic religious duty and rights that have crept in, mostly unchallenged, over the centuries and are presently being promoted by the worst of people in the Muslim community.

I have been reading Terry Jones’ book on the expansion of the Roman Empire, ‘Barbarians’, and while I would not claim it is a scholarly tome, it did give me pause to think. How much of Sharia Law is actually law left over from the Eastern Empire? ie actually Roman.

“How much of Sharia Law is actually law left over from the Eastern Empire? ie actually Roman.”

What? You mean sharia law is actually ours and the whole kerkuffle is really our fault, right?

Good grief.

Sue R How much of Sharia Law is actually law left over from the Eastern Empire?

Couldn’t resist sticking it into the west even though there is no evidence to back it up – just the reactionary pomo urge to loath democracy and liberties because it is advanced, modern, prosperous, egalitarian, and rational?

Couldn’t resist the urge from the depth of the guts – devoid of any intellect.

Good grief.

To re-quote what I quoted above from Sadar:

[T]he bulk of the Shari`ah actually consists of fiqh or jurisprudence, which is nothing more than legal opinion of classical jurists. The very term fiqh was not in vogue before the Abbasid period when it was actually formulated and codified.

three factors supervened:

1.

Muslim history was in its expansionist phase, and fiqh incorporated the logic of Muslim imperialism of that time.

2. [T]he world was simple and could easily be divided into black and white: hence, the division of the world into Daral Islam and Daral Harb.

3.

[T]he framers of law were not by this stage managers of society, the law became merely theory which could not be modified – the framers of the law were unable to see where the faults lay and what aspect of the law needed fresh thinking and reformulation.

The degree to which Byzantine Law and ‘Abbasid period fiqh mirror each other may have to do with similar political and social conditions. Plausibly, ‘Abbasid fiqh was influenced by the Byzantine context into which the Islamic Empire intruded. However, I do not think there is evidence to support the idea that Shari’a was fundamentally underpinned by a Byzantine model.

I hardly feel “advanced, modern, prosperous, egalitarian, and rational” would be useful descriptions of middle period Eastern Roman society either. Indeed, the degree to which our own certainly advanced, modern, prosperous, egalitarian, and rational societies were influenced by medieval Byzantine society is surely itself somewhat debatable.

Is Hamid a raving lunatic? Is he fit to sit at the table with grown-ups? Thank you Abu Faris for your knowledgeable answer. I would just like to point out that Mr Jones’ history shows that teh real Barbarians in the Ancient world were the Romans, and the Empires that they were often in conflict with, and wiped out totally were far in advance. Little bit of Celtic Nationalism…the Celts were the best smiths in Ancient Europe, far exceeding the Romans, the Celts were also world leaders in chariot technology. That the Christian tradition eventually developed into something that allowed science, rationality and democracy to flourish is not due to the Romans. I just like to say that the Roman Empire (from Terry Jones’ book, and admittedly he has a political agenda to push) sounds very much like the Muslim world. The Romans were terrified of innovation and had no use for science, even their military science was stolen from other cultures. All the famous things that are supposedly roman, like arches and roads, were actually invented by other people.

Sue R: as a long-time student of ancient history, I think I have to say that you are talking nonsense. Your statement that Jones has “a political agenda to push” is just about the only correct point you make. His so-called historical work on the Romans is a travesty, and I would seriously urge you to widen your reading a bit if you want an accurate picture of the era.

Just for the record, with the exception of Carthage, the Romans did not “wipe out” anyone “totally”. Greek, Celtic, near Eastern and most other cultures they came into contact with were absorbed into, and adapted to, the culture of the empire. The Romans actually displayed almost complete tolerance of the religions and cultures of the people they ruled, banning only extreme practices such as human sacrifice, and persecuting Christians on grounds of political disloyalty, not religious doctrine.

Nor were they “terrified of innovation” in the way that you refer to. “Science” as we know it today did not exist in any ancient culture, leaving aside the rarefied musings of a small number of philosophers in Alexandria and other parts of the Hellenistic world. Ancient cultures ran largely on muscle power (human and animal), and technological advancement as we know it today had no place. The building techniques used on the Egyptian pyramids were not greatly different to those used on the Colosseum, or on the cathedrals of mediaeval Europe, come to that.

“The Celts were world leaders in chariot technology”. Chariots were utterly obsolete as weapons of war in the Roman era, and by Julius Caesar’s time were a curiosity confined to backwaters like Britain.

“Their military science was stolen from other cultures”. Again, read some books. At its height, the Roman military system was arguably more advanced than anything seen in Europe until the British army of the 19th century. It swept all before it and proved itself superior to any competing system for over 500 years. Not bad for something they allegedly “stole”.

Ave Caesar!

Dave: I do not claim to know all about the Ancient World, I was merely trying to trace the roots of sharia law. I am afraid that I am philosophically unable to accept that vast tracts of land in the Near and Middle East were lawless zones. Some of the earliest and greatest empires had flourished there, and the earliest law codes were written there. It seems to me that sharia law must have relied on such codes, perhaps not Roman, and perhaps Terry Jones is wrong about the Roman Empire, but the question still stands. I remember reading that veiling women was a Greek practice, as was not allowing women to attend funerals, I just think it is important for an intellectual understanding of Islam to know where it originated.

A quick Google turns up the Law Code of Hammurabi (the first known legal code) and the Cyrus Cylinder (which I have actually seen as it is housed in the British Museum). There was also a wealth of Jewish law, and Armenian law etc etc etc. I wonder if anyone has studied the historico-legal content and context of sharia law?

Have its critics ever read what they say or met members of the Worker Communist Party of Iran before they splutter about their views?

See: http://maryamnamazie.com/articles/artspch.html

This rally is an excellent initiative whsoe ideas are supported by many on the democratic left – centre, middle and ‘far’.

Just for the record, with the exception of Carthage, the Romans did not “wipe out” anyone “totally”.

Erm, excuse me, what about Jerusalem AD 70? Or are you saying that completely sacking a city/country and forcing the few survivors to flee as persona non grata doesn’t constitute “wipe out” “totally”?

Sue R: I had to study Roman Law as part of my (postgraduate) law degree in order to practice law in SA, as SA law was a hybrid of English and Roman Dutch law. As far as I can recall, it had nothing in common with sharia law at all. In some respects it was far more sophisticated than English law. For example in English law there was a primitive need for literal, ritualistic acts in order to legalise contracts, whereas Roman law could conceptualise principles. The residue of this is the annoying and uncecessary encumbrance of the principle of Consideration in contract law in England without which no contract is valid, and still engends a mountain of unecessary case law deciding whether there is Consideration. English jurisprudence cannot conceive how one could have binding contracts without Consideration. Meanwhile in the Roman world, commerce happily flourished based on binding contracts with no need for this “essential element” at all.

“I was merely trying to trace the roots of sharia law. … I remember reading that veiling women was a Greek practice, as was not allowing women to attend funerals, I just think it is important for an intellectual understanding of Islam to know where it originated.”

Here are the basics you need to know. It’s hundreds upon hundreds of years old and plenty of its principles are incompatible with enlightenment values. Efforts to trace it back to Europe seem rather pointless and trying to dress this up as an intellectual exercise is disingenuous. All that matters is how it is now.

Oh OK then – our ancestors may be partly to blame. Can we move on now?

“Just for the record, with the exception of Carthage, the Romans did not “wipe out” anyone “totally”.

Erm, excuse me, what about Jerusalem AD 70? Or are you saying that completely sacking a city/country and forcing the few survivors to flee as persona non grata doesn’t constitute “wipe out” “totally”?”

Well OK, point taken, my original use of “anyone” may have been loosely written in haste. But sacking cities was pretty common fare in the ancient world, and the Carthaginians still
stand out as a rival civilization obliterated as a deliberate act of state policy, in a war that the Romans themselves cynically provoked. Even the suppression of the Jewish revolt of AD 70 didn’t come that close to a “Final Solution”.

What’s eating you, NB? I’m sorry I ever mentioned the Romans, all I was asking, in a spirit of intellectual curiosity, was where the roots of sharia law may be located. Perhaps, it was God after all, telling them what to write, but maybe, just maybe it was a historical process to do with pre-existing Middle Eastern/Near Eastern legal codes. I’m not blaming anyone. Famous dictum of Marx, ‘Man makes history, but not in circumstances of his own choosing.’. Pointless blaming people for events that happened years ago and cannot be undone. It’s rather childish to take that attitude, if you don’t mind me saying.

Andrew Coates – I have asked Communist leader Maryam Namazie if in a rally on the “universal human rights for women,” if she will also be addressing the horrific oppression and dehumanization of women by Communist authorities. It is a fair question. No answer, however.

Yesterday a defender of women’s rights who testified on November 10 at Washington DC was arrested in Communist China and his wife beaten. Certainly, this too is a human rights issue.
http://bit.ly/1KdSEF

How can we support “universal human rights” if we are only concerned about the reported 1.5B adherents to Islam, but ignore the 1.3B in Communist China alone? I would like to hear Maryam’s answer. A leading supporter of Communism, such as Maryam Namazie, needs to address this issue as well.

At its height, the Roman military system was arguably more advanced than anything seen in Europe until the British army of the 19th century. It swept all before it and proved itself superior to any competing system for over 500 years. Not bad for something they allegedly “stole”.

Complete non sequitur. They could have stolen it from a smaller nation, whom they then vanquished by virtue of superior numbers + the stolen system. Just as a for instance.
I know that it’s very fashionable to drool over the Romans’ alleged civilisation. There are endless TV programmes about it. The truth is that they invented a superior military system, yes, flattened most other nations around the Med and parts north, and proceeded to absorb their innovations in a whole raft of fields. And being the victors, rewrote history (much of what they wrote about the Germanic tribes and the Celts is pure propaganda).

My only question to Communist rally leader Maryam Namazie is when will she also be speaking on the abuses of children and women by Communists? It is a reasonable question for someone supporting “universal human rights.” http://bit.ly/8U3Ssy