Should Sharia Law be introduced in to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Italy, Japan, the USA, Canada, Russia, Germany, etc, etc ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3a7NBmzGAho
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
We had a big stink about this topic about a year ago when the provincial government of Ontario (in Canada), decided on the idea that Sharia law would be a good idea to expedite things at a minor level avoiding lengthy court backlogs,expenses etc…there was BIG debate over the issue. Toronto has a lot of Musilms so there was favourable push on their side. The government stated NO, and the issue was quashed. The thing with Sharia law is that even within the muslim community, there are broad interpretations on the law.Sharia Law is not the same amongst all muslims. Different community’s have different understanding of Sharia law. This makes it equally difficult for a christian government to decide which interpretation of the sharia law amongst the muslim community, should be deemed correct.I think most people will automatically condem the idea of Sharia law in places like Austrailia, (as noted in thread)…but if I may point out, there have been many good results from the implimentation of shari-related laws utilised in various community’s. For example, the ismaili community in Toronto have been using a type of sharia law(although I wouldn’t call it exactly that), for many yrs to help with Ismailis getting divorced etc and this practise 9which has been going on for yrs) has been working very well, and all parties are still able to seek judicial arbritation of they desire…so although I may be a bit course in my reply, I assure you that it’s not all that bad as it sounds…(although I am against it , I only note there is a good side to it)
Well the problem is in the UK is that, under British law there already exists a provision for people to conduct an agreement in the presence and or guidance of a third party, so there is no reason that people can not enter in to a binding legal agreement under rules of Sharia. Since this provision already exists, if people are talking about Sharia law; what they actually want is a parallel legal system for Muslims in the UK, which is an entirely different thing. Since most Islamic scholars would agree that e.g. the proper sentance for apostasy is death, the archbishop of Canterbury is effectively saying that British Muslims that convert to Christanity should be executed by Sharia courts backed by the resources of the British State, so that if a British Muslim converts to Christanity the British police would arrest him, bring him to Sharia Court and if found guilty of apostasy assist the Sharia authorities in his execution. Luckily for the Archbishop of Canterbury, many British people can not understand what he is talking about most of the time, since he finds it impossible to do other than say the most simple things in most complex and impenetrable language possible and for those who make the struggle to work out what he is talking about, I would say many of those regard him as just the sort of disgraceful bufoon who returned from the trips to the Third Reich and the USSR in the 1930s to the UK praising their efficency, humanity, good working condtions, public houseing schemes etc and generally what jolly good chaps Hitler and Stalin were. As for the guy in the clip talking about the Caliphate, yes different religious communities did have their own jurisdictions in e.g. Ottoman Turkey and that was a humane system within the standards of the time and superior to the likes of countries like Spain, which had no religious tolerance whatsoever but try holding a public demonstration in 17th century Turkey against the foreign policy of the Sultan and you would be quite literally loseing your head very quickly, so these people want circa 17th Century Islamic legal systems to guarantee an application of Sharia Law but they also want 21st century secularist democracy legal rights when they wish to criticize the State or its friends and Allies. In non legal parlance that is known as wishing to have one’s cake and eat it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Sigh. No, he isn’t - the situation under British law is that two parties may agree in advance to submit a civil dispute to binding arbitration, and may pick any arbitrator they choose. There are currently a whole bunch of Catholic, Jewish, CofE and Secular groups doing this (in the case of the Jews at least it is formally organised as a Rabbinical court) - why should the Muslims not do the same.
Oh, and the reason the Archbishop of Canterbury was sticking his oar in has nothing to do with Muslims at all. As a CofE Archbishop he gets a free seat in the House of Lords, and is busy trying to ensure that he keeps that and Gordon doesn’t abolish it.
I was wondering when this was going to be mentioned. It seems the whiners do not know about it and it shows just how they use non-events to try and sow discord.
Oh, and the reason the Archbishop of Canterbury was sticking his oar in has nothing to do with Muslims at all. As a CofE Archbishop he gets a free seat in the House of Lords, and is busy trying to ensure that he keeps that and Gordon doesn’t abolish it.
Strangely I have heard interviews where several of the bretheren talk about this and they all agreed it could not continue forever…
No, and it will never happen.
Next.
Asking the wrong person here.
When NZ was first settled by Europeans we had two systems of Criminal as well as civil law running more or less simultaneously. Maori Tribal law and English law. Until the settlers became numerically stronger when they did away with the Maori law. Frankly I’d like to see it come back for some offenses.
In any case I have no problem with civil courts of arbitration based arounf a particular legal POV.
I think it becomes a problem when there are two or more systems of state-sanctioned law based upon the defendant’s race, religion or anything else.
Here we have Aboriginal tribal law getting unofficial, and sometimes not very unofficial, judicial and other legal recognition which leads, in my view, to absurd results. For example, an Aboriginal offender who has been ritually (and potentially fatally) speared under tribal law as punishment for killing someone may advance that as grounds for a lesser sentence when facing a state court. The net result is that the defendant argues that as he has been the victim of a serious assault under state law but of justice under Aboriginal law, the perpetrators of which will go unprosecuted and unpunished, then he should get a lesser sentence under state law. Courts have often taken this into account. The same courts wouldn’t take into account that a white criminal got kneecapped by other criminals for offending some criminal code of conduct, but the elements of the situation are effectively the same as far as state law is concerned.
I don’t have a problem with private legal systems which co-exist with state law but are not sanctioned by it. For example, the Catholic Church has a fully fledged legal system which co-exists with state law but is not sanctioned by it, so that a divorce in the state courts is not recognised under Church law and vice versa. If people want to participate in those systems that is up to them, but if they want the state to incorporate those systems into state law in a secular society like Australia then I object to that.
Lately, the Toronto Star newspaper has been doing a series on the case of several muslim women who wear droopy skirts at work at UPS and the employers fear that the skirts can get caught in the machines or cause them to fall off the ladders they climb. My fear is that pretty soon, with Canadian lax and over holistic approach to muslims, that we will see bus drivers driving our children to school wearing the veil with nothing but the eyes showing . The day will come. Then when they get into an accident and kill all the kids, they will still claim that the veil did not prevent them from seeng the road clearly.god!
November 12, 2008
JOHN GODDARD
STAFF REPORTER
A mosque asking that Canadian workplaces respect a strict Muslim dress code is at the same time disseminating slurs against Jews and Western societies, and warning members against social integration.
The Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque near Kipling Ave. and Rexdale Blvd. serves as the religious authority for eight Somali women complaining to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that UPS Canada Ltd. violated their religious rights at a sorting plant. The mosque, founded in 1990 and serving upwards of 10,000 people, preaches strict adherence to sharia, or Islamic law, and no compromise with the West.
Teachings on the mosque’s website, khalidmosque.com, refer to non-Muslim Westerners as “wicked,” “corrupt” and “our clear enemies.”
Sometimes Jews are singled out.
“Is it permissible for women to wear high-heeled shoes?” begins one posting in question-and-answer format. “That is not permissible,” comes the reply. “It involves resembling the Disbelieving Women or the wicked women. It has its origin among the Jewish women.”
Modern pastimes are condemned.
“What is the ruling on subscribing to sports channels?” another question begins. “Watching some of the female spectators, when the camera focuses on them time after time” stirs “evil inclinations,” the lesson reads. “Some (players) may not even believe in Allaah.”
Mosque leaders refused repeated requests for an interview.
A disclaimer on the website says questions and answers do not necessarily reflect the mosque’s views. But the About Us page says: “All questions and answers on this site (are) prepared, approved and supervised by (the mosque’s imam) Bashir Yusuf Shiil.”
The mosque’s stand on the UPS case also appears contradictory.
In September, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal heard two weeks of testimony from eight mosque members alleging “Islamophobia” at the company’s west Toronto plant. Three final days of testimony are scheduled for next week.
The eight women, who lost their jobs at UPS, say Islam dictates that they wear a full-length skirt for modesty. The courier company insists that any skirt be knee-length for safety, as workers climb ladders up to 6 metres high.
Under their skirt, the women wear full-length trousers but say they do not want the lower part showing in case the shape of the calf can be discerned.
The complaint originally centred on the company’s use of temporary workers and uneven enforcement of its safety rules.
But the key question remains: Is UPS insisting on shorter hems for safety or is it violating religious rights by denying the women permanent jobs unless they conform?
So far, no Khalid Bin Al-Walid Mosque representative has attended the sessions, but the women cited the mosque as their place of worship and religious authority, and tabled a letter from its administration. “This is to certify that the religion of Islam requires all Muslim women to cover her entire body inclusive of the legs, arms, head, ears and neck,” the letter reads. “As such, (the women) would not be able to wear pants as an outfit.”
On the other hand, the mosque’s website teachings forbid women to work outside the home in the first place. “It is known that when women go to work in the workplaces of men, this leads to mixing with men,” one such posting says.
“This is a very dangerous matter,” it reads. "It is in clear opposition to the texts of the Shariah that order the women to remain in their houses and to fulfill the type of work that is particular for her …
“We ask Allah to protect our land and the lands of all Muslims from the plots and machinations of their enemies.”
Two of the women making the complaint – Dales Yusuf, 46, and Nadifo Yusuf (no relation), 36 – said in an interview that they live in Canada now, and are free to pick and choose from Islamic law.
“We must work,” said Dales Yusuf. “I’m a single parent raising my kids.” Jacquie Chic, a lawyer with the Workers’ Action Centre representing the women at the hearings, said neither she nor her clients were aware of the mosque’s posted teachings. “I, the Workers’ Centre and these women are concerned enormously about any expression of anti-Semitism or any other form of racism,” she said.
Questions to the mosque about its teachings were met with evasiveness over three weeks.
Mosque chairman Osman Mohamed three times agreed to an interview and three times cancelled at last minute. Imam Shiil was said to be in Saudi Arabia and unreachable. Mosque administrator Abukar Mohamed confused matters further by appearing to agree with UPS, saying: “The Quran says women must be covered – it doesn’t give you the specific clothes. But I am not a religious authority.”