[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-07, 07:06, said:

Odd to see you agree that his executive orders are mostly photo-ops for his aggrandizement and have virtually no policy effects. Maybe you are the one leaning?

It is amusing how you conflate one photo-op into all executive orders. You are indeed talented. You obviously are not learning.

[barmar]

 jogs, on 2017-May-07, 11:26, said:

Isn't Sharia Law the real Islam? The West wants the tamer westernized version of Islam.

Sharia Law is basically just the codification of Muslim traditions, much as the Talmud is codification of Jewish traditions.

Being against Sharia Law is essentially saying that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious traditions. It's analogous to saying that Christian marriages performed by priests were not legally binding, or that Jews should not be allowed to keep Kosher.

Does Sharia Law include some pronouncements and requirements that are no longer appropriate in modern society? It certainly does. But so does the Christian Bible. Many US legislators refer to the Bible to justify their arguments against homosexuality and abortion. Why is that permitted, yet they worry about Sharia Law?

I suspect that most people who are concerned about Sharia Law invading our country don't even know what it consists of. They just associate it with Islam, and conflate it with the ideals of radical groups like ISIS.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2017-May-07, 16:15, said:

Sharia Law is basically just the codification of Muslim traditions, much as the Talmud is codification of Jewish traditions.

Being against Sharia Law is essentially saying that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious traditions. It's analogous to saying that Christian marriages performed by priests were not legally binding, or that Jews should not be allowed to keep Kosher.

Does Sharia Law include some pronouncements and requirements that are no longer appropriate in modern society? It certainly does. But so does the Christian Bible. Many US legislators refer to the Bible to justify their arguments against homosexuality and abortion. Why is that permitted, yet they worry about Sharia Law?

I suspect that most people who are concerned about Sharia Law invading our country don't even know what it consists of. They just associate it with Islam, and conflate it with the ideals of radical groups like ISIS.

I confess to being a person who knows little about Sharia Law. But what you say does not sound right to me. Take your assertion "or that Jews should not be allowed to keep Kosher." Now I also am not too sure what it means to "keep Kosher". But for example say pork is forbidden. Or driving on Saturday. It s one thing to not eat pork or drive on Saturday. It is another thing to make it illegal to eat pork or drive on Saturday. The first I would call tradition or custom, the second I would call law. If a Muslim wishes to pray at a certain time of the day while facing in a certain direction, that's a custom that he can do. A law could require that I do it.

Of course there are U.S. laws based on Christian tradition. In Minnesota, when I was young, you could not buy alcoholic beverages on Sunday. Polygamy is illegal. Profanity in public used to be illegal, I am not sure if it still is. But most of us are reasonably accepting of most of these laws. I long ago came to regard most Christian theological claims, and theological claims of other religions also for that matter, as mostly untrue.Some of the history might be accurate, subject to checking. But I can reject theological claims of resurrection while still favoring monogamy. It's a bit tricky. I don't cite the Bible to justify my views on most matters, but I strongly suspect that I am a product of a society that over centuries has internalized the moral views, some at least, of Christian religion. Faith, hope and charity are good traits, even if Paul had never spoken on it.

Becky once lived in an area of California where mail was delivered on Sunday but not on Saturday. A lot of Seventh Day Adventists lived there, so accommodations were made. Accommodations such as that are easy enough to live with, others would be less so. I believe that the Seventh Day Advocates view card playing as a sin. My maternal grandmother was an Adventist, my mother liked to play poker and so, or perhaps for other reasons, she became a Presbyterian. Theologically, I walked away from it all. In terms of values, well, that's a more complicated issue. More than a few religious people agree with that.

I have little interest in telling others what they must do, but to live in a society we of necessity set some boundaries to behavior. I don't know if the Bible has an explicit position on dueling, but I am glad we no longer allow it.

This response wanders a bit, I know. I think tolerance of other people's customs comes naturally to me, but there is a line somewhere even of I have not thought it through just where that line is. And certainly part of this is whether they wish to practice their custom or to make it law that everyone must practice their custom.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-May-07, 20:18, said:

This response wanders a bit, I know. I think tolerance of other people's customs comes naturally to me, but there is a line somewhere even of I have not thought it through just where that line is. And certainly part of this is whether they wish to practice their custom or to make it law that everyone must practice their custom.

If they can make their religion's customs into law that everyone must follow, it is no longer a religion but a theocracy.

Quote

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHARI’A AND ISLAMIC LAW?

Yes. Shari’a isn’t a legal system. It includes Islamic principles to help guide people to new answers, and it includes common cultural practices that had to do with a specific time and place in history. Muslim rulers wanted a way to make Shari’a into law. To do that, they decided which rules needed to be laws, first. Then they used interpretations of Shari’a to show people that the new laws were Islamic. The result was what we call Islamic Law.

Islamic Law is always based on someone’s interpretation of the Shari’a (which is an interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith). Because it is a human interpretation, Islamic Law can mean different things in different places and at different times in history.

Today, interpretations of Shari’a are usually still limited to rules of interpretation (called usul al-fiqh) that were established by early scholars before 900 CE. More recently scholars have called for new ijtihad to meet the changing needs of modern Islamic societies.

DO ISLAMIC COUNTRIES TODAY USE ISLAMIC LAW?

Yes and no. Many Islamic countries believe they are following Shari’a in family law matters, but Shari’a is not a legal system. These countries actually use some kind of Islamic Law in family matters, and in all other matters apply European-style law left over from colonization. Iran, Saudi Arabia and a few other countries claim that most of their laws are based on Shari’a, but, in fact, most of those laws are secular. Even those laws which come from Islamic Law are different from place to place because they are interpreted by people—and those people are influenced by their culture.

Still, Islamic Law is followed by many Muslims as a way of life, not as law. In that case, it is a personal choice, based on the person’s own understanding and beliefs.

source: http://www.mpvusa.org/sharia-law/

[gwnn]

What do you think of "Sharia courts" in Britain where people can go voluntarily ( ) to settle issues? For example, divorce is treated vastly differently in Sharia, in particular when it comes to men vs women. Now, maybe you can tell me that a woman voluntarily wants to get a divorce in a court where she will be strongly disadvantaged over men (when compared to standard British law), but I'll much sooner assume she is being pressured into going to the Sharia courts on pain of shunning or ostracism (hopefully not physical violence). Where, in this analysis, if someone is skeptical of the whole concept, are we saying

barmar said:

Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious traditions

? Does this mean that if 90% of British Muslims want to make a law against 10% of British Muslims, we should let them? Of course, in this case, it is even worse as it is 50% ruling against 50% and we have to accept this. The same goes for inheritance, where women are systemically disadvantaged 2:1 over men.

[Zelandakh]

 gwnn, on 2017-May-08, 02:15, said:

What do you think of "Sharia courts" in Britain where people can go voluntarily ( ) to settle issues?

Perhaps you need to expand your own information bubble on this one Csaba. Here is a more neutral picture than you have seemingly read elsewhere.

[gwnn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-May-08, 02:45, said:

Perhaps you need to expand your own information bubble on this one Csaba. Here is a more neutral picture than you have seemingly read elsewhere.

Instead of starting on the path towards calling each other names, maybe you could tell me which part of that source contradicts what I said? This is the most important principle that I was talking about:

Quote

So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying religious principles.

And I am strongly skeptical on whether or not you can ascertain the "both parties agree" part.

Or should we just start throwing links at each other's faces? OK:

https://www.theguard...amily-law-women

Or is the leftist Guardian also an example that I am living in an information bubble?

I am not sure I want to take the word of your "neutral picture" source

Quote

The coalition government had said that the courts have the powers they need to protect people from coercion and unequal treatment.

over women who are actually under these structures.

Quote

The signatories to the statement have witnessed, experienced or fled from the horrors and degradations of “honour” killings, domestic violence, child and ritual abuse, forced marriage, polygamy, rape and sexual assaults. They speak out against religious impositions that exacerbate their daily struggles to live their lives as they choose. They reject the forces of fundamentalism and patriarchy that seek to divide and govern through surveillance and control of female sexuality.

But to each his own I guess! Sorry for living in a bubble and believing them.

[Zelandakh]

The point is that your initial post is factually untrue. Sharia councils do not have the status of court and may not bypass national law. There is certainly a case that no relgious bodies at all should be involved under any circumstances but if a couple decide to use a mediator independently, is it really right for the State to deny them that? That is not a particularly easy area to operate in as, as you say, there are pressures that can be brought to bear that may result in a less favourable result being given to one side or the other. I am sure that these councils know just how far they can go in a ruling to get past the national law clauses.

In essence I am not against legislation to protect groups from such mediation services. I simply object to their being described as courts and of having the power to divorce a couple independently of the law of the land. This is a misrepresentation of the current situation. To go on to suggest that even grosser discrimination is possible, in direct contravention of national laws, is almost as fake as what is coming out of the US in recent times. There is no provision for such an action and no basis for the fear that this might happen any time soon.

Finally, sharia law exists in many different forms. It is not as cut and dry as parties such as UKIP would have you believe. It is certainly true that it is used to justify some acts that are, from our Western perspective, pretty barbaric and it saddens me that the women in your article had to go through that. And I would certainly be horrified at the idea that they might fear something similar happening in Britain. But Britain is not Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, etc. To bring up the actions that were done in other countries as reason to change the law in the UK is just wrong. If women are suffering from these actions in Britain, that needs to be dealt with. And if there is pressure on abused women/LGBTs not to speak out, that culture needs to be addressed and the victims empowered. I feel that it should be possible to deal with such abusers within the current laws. If not, then I would of course also support a change in legislation.

[gwnn]

OK, thanks for that clarification. There's a reason why one should explain whether they disagree with the entire post or just a specific example in it (divorce) while agreeing with the general feeling (of being worried about practical issues about consent). I admit I did not read all the laws regarding this and my original post was in factual error about "Islamic divorce" if we are talking about the letter of the law. I am not convinced that this matters so much though... Probably it's not a great idea to talk about isolated cases, but what about her?

https://www.opendemo...ia-courts-in-uk

(a woman has got a valid legal divorce but the husband wanted to go through the Sharia courts as well; emphasis mine):

Quote

Another Imam, a close family friend of ours, told us that Lubna would have to seek a khula (divorce) from a Sharia court. I vehemently disagreed and cited the cases of several Muslim women I had known who had been divorced in the English courts without any need for a religious divorce. These women had since remarried too. The imam said the mosques had failed in their duty and that these women would go to hell as they were committing zina (adultery) and producing haram children. (...)

Fair enough, so after this, the woman agreed to go to the Sharia council "of her own accord".

From the Guardian again (which notes everything that you noted, ie, they are just toy courts, informal, no legal standing, ...):
https://www.theguard...-way-to-divorce

Quote

Subject to various conditions and restrictions, husbands can end the marriage simply by declaring they are divorcing their wife – known as a talaq. A wife can also initiate a divorce (known as a khula), and if the husband agrees, the marriage can be ended. If he contests it, a third party can dissolve the contract – which is where sharia councils step in. [b]Without the council rulings, the panel tell me, many women feel they are still married in the sight of God – even if they have had a civil divorce.[/q]

(the panel = the particular Sharia council the journalists talked to)

There are also women who, whether by their own accord or coerced, only marry through sharia councils.

Quote

One pressing problem is the increasing number of Muslim couples who are at the mercy of sharia councils because they have had religious ceremonies to mark their marriage but are not legally married under UK law.

So at the end of the day it's still the same question... Are these people willing participants of the toy, harmless, consultative religious courts or are they guilted/pressured/beaten into submission? And are we sure it's a good idea to have something that arbitrates, however non-bindingly, according to these principles? Informing the participants that none of these decisions are binding in any way would be a very good start (ad nauseam, perhaps, much like we have health warnings on cigarettes). IANAL, sadly, so I am sure a lot of these concerns are addressed at least formally, but I also know that most people are NALE (not a lawyer either) and it's not obvious to me what the main benefit of having these courts/councils is.

[Winstonm]

 gwnn, on 2017-May-08, 02:15, said:

What do you think of "Sharia courts" in Britain where people can go voluntarily ( ) to settle issues? For example, divorce is treated vastly differently in Sharia, in particular when it comes to men vs women. Now, maybe you can tell me that a woman voluntarily wants to get a divorce in a court where she will be strongly disadvantaged over men (when compared to standard British law), but I'll much sooner assume she is being pressured into going to the Sharia courts on pain of shunning or ostracism (hopefully not physical violence). Where, in this analysis, if someone is skeptical of the whole concept, are we saying

? Does this mean that if 90% of British Muslims want to make a law against 10% of British Muslims, we should let them? Of course, in this case, it is even worse as it is 50% ruling against 50% and we have to accept this. The same goes for inheritance, where women are systemically disadvantaged 2:1 over men.

I think almost everyone who incorrectly uses the term law about Sharia is confused about the influences of culture on a religion, and that Sharia is localized custom rather than global. Religions are reactive and change is gradual, brought about by pressure from cultural mores as that which used to be intolerable is absorbed peacefully into the culture. This is quite easily shown when viewing the culture that allowed the Inquisitions to occur and the culture today where mass torture would bring lawful consquences. When the most vile aspects of local Sharia are seen in this light, it is more understandable that the least advanced Sharia tends to occur in areas that are the least advanced cultures.

Generalization about all of Islam based on the Sharia of the Taliban in Afghanistan is like accusing all Christianity of evil intent based on the actions of David Koresh.

[gwnn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-May-08, 08:41, said:

I think almost everyone who incorrectly uses the term law about Sharia is confused about the influences of culture on a religion, and that Sharia is localized custom rather than global. Religions are reactive and change is gradual, brought about by pressure from cultural mores as that which used to be intolerable is absorbed peacefully into the culture. This is quite easily shown when viewing the culture that allowed the Inquisitions to occur and the culture today where mass torture would bring lawful consquences. When the most vile aspects of local Sharia are seen in this light, it is more understandable that the least advanced Sharia tends to occur in areas that are the least advanced cultures.

Generalization about all of Islam based on the Sharia of the Taliban in Afghanistan is like accusing all Christianity of evil intent based on the actions of David Koresh.

Did you quote my post by accident? I never generalized about all of Islam based on Afghanistan. My post was about Sharia councils/courts in the UK and whether it's enough guarantee to have both parties agree on participating or whether many people are just pressured into it. Would you like to reply to my post? I am honestly interested in your opinion.

[Winstonm]

 gwnn, on 2017-May-08, 09:33, said:

Did you quote my post by accident? I never generalized about all of Islam based on Afghanistan. My post was about Sharia councils/courts in the UK and whether it's enough guarantee to have both parties agree on participating or whether many people are just pressured into it. Would you like to reply to my post? I am honestly interested in your opinion.

I was neither criticizing nor meant to suggest your post meant all of Islam - I simply used it to point to a common misunderstanding about Sharia in that it is not a universal Islamic law. I hope you don't mind.

[Elianna]

The same thing can happen for Jewish couples to. To divorce religiously, the man must give the woman a "get". I've heard of cases where the man basically extorts the wife for better terms by threatening to withhold a get, even if they are divorced in terms of civil law. What people do now is petition the court to include a ruling that the man must grant one as part of the terms of the divorce.

(My main point is that divorce is an issue for other religions, too, not just Islam)

[gwnn]

oh yes I heard of those religious courts too (sorry, I'll continue to call them religious courts) and I actually wanted to mention them in my first post. I fully oppose both implementations, notwithstanding their​ *de jure* toothlessness.

[Winstonm]

Today's testimony by Yates and Clapper was an impressive display of the Roman-like phalanx that is created by the Republican Party and why they are difficult to defeat.

[jogs]

Today's progressive left is much like yesterday's Catholic Church. Once each has taken a position on an issue, discussion has ended and dissent is no longer tolerated.
Going against the Church is heresy. Going against the left will get you branded racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.
Galileo agreed with Copernicus that the earth revolved around the sun. The Church labeled Galileo an heretic. Galileo was kept under house arrest until his death in 1642.
The progressive left is not as powerful as the Catholic Church. The progressive left can and does demonized all those who don't fall in line. Trump is number 1 on their hit list.

[jogs]

 barmar, on 2017-May-07, 16:15, said:

Sharia Law is basically just the codification of Muslim traditions, much as the Talmud is codification of Jewish traditions.

Being against Sharia Law is essentially saying that Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious traditions. It's analogous to saying that Christian marriages performed by priests were not legally binding, or that Jews should not be allowed to keep Kosher.

Does Sharia Law include some pronouncements and requirements that are no longer appropriate in modern society? It certainly does. But so does the Christian Bible. Many US legislators refer to the Bible to justify their arguments against homosexuality and abortion. Why is that permitted, yet they worry about Sharia Law?

I suspect that most people who are concerned about Sharia Law invading our country don't even know what it consists of. They just associate it with Islam, and conflate it with the ideals of radical groups like ISIS.

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

Scroll down to "Human rights". I believe Sharia is unconstitutional in America.

[Zelandakh]

 jogs, on 2017-May-09, 07:39, said:

Today's progressive left is much like yesterday's Catholic Church.

Coming from an organisation that is supprted by today's Christianity and that has, if anything, become even less tolerant of other viewpoints in recent years, this post is actually quite hilarious....or at least it would be if it were not at the same time quite so sad.

[barmar]

 Elianna, on 2017-May-08, 12:00, said:

(My main point is that divorce is an issue for other religions, too, not just Islam)

So much that there was a schism in Christianity a few centuries ago -- England switched from the Roman Catholic Church to the Church of England when Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce or annullment.

[billw55]

 jogs, on 2017-May-09, 07:46, said:

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

Scroll down to "Human rights". I believe Sharia is unconstitutional in America.

It certainly would be ... if it was a law. Which it isn't. I would certainly oppose it becoming law. I would equally oppose Christian doctrine becoming law.