6 Comments »

Given that there are more than 85 official or unofficial Sharia Courts making judgments in England, perhaps this is not a bad law. If the judgments of these courts do not reflect the laws and values of the British Peoples then they should not be allowed. If these courts have a different standard for male rights vs female rights than cases involving women should not be allowed in Sharia Courts.

In these forums people state that Sharia is simply a way of life practiced every day and that it transcends a definitive set of legal obligations. Yet as I read about decisions made by these courts in England I find that if I marry a Muslim Woman there she can lose her kids since I am not Muslim and will not convert. As a non Muslim I would not agree to that and would not expect to even go to court as a Woman who may be a widow has full control of her children and is not subject to any tribunal of religious beliefs or values.

Stories such as this in combination of what is occurring in some western countries raise some doubt in my mind that peoples worries over Sharia Law are frivolous. After all, regardless of what you think of this woman introducing this bill, the goal of the bill reflects the values of a secular society who strives to treat people fairly under a system not weighted down by prejudice be it religious or otherwise.

//criley401
10 June 2011 at 8:16 am

Following the will of Sharia courts is optional, dear poster. A Muslim may prefer the secular society and practice their religion privately if they so choose. Further, Sharia courts have to follow the laws of the nation they’re in- even if the nation is not Islamic. A Sharia court can’t order a murder to take place under Qur’anic jurisdiction where it is outlawed in that country.

Anti-Sharia bills amount to destruction of cultural heritage in an attempt to assimilate the Muslim people in to the secular British and Western consumerist social model. No less.

//Tyler Simonds
10 June 2011 at 10:47 am

Maybe So Tyler, but it is being postulated that people are being coerced into allowing these court’s jurisdiction over their cases be it by the threat of being isolated from the community or simply direct threat. I have no idea how much of this is true but we have had to endure this in the past with Catholic Excommunication or with the practice of Shunning which was used by and still used by some Christian groups. In the United States we have come a long way in minimalizing the effect of these practices. It is my hope that we will not have to put up with it, even temporally, similar practices by the Islamic religion.

I fully support the right of Islamic people to build temples and worship in the way they choose. I really do not care about the way they dress or the idiosyncrasys of their religious practices. I do oppose, however, the establishment of any councils that would attempt to control(influence) Divorce, Marriage, child custody, Inheritance, or settlement over an issue in which a criminal law has been broken. I would oppose this even if all participants agreed to submit to the authority of the council. It is too easy to scare people into cooperation. If there is any scaring to be done it needs to be done by a local District Attorney, or the secular court system itself. Look at the Catholics, the number of kids abused is shameful simply because they thought they were above simply calling the police and reporting a crime. Mormons have had their problems along these lines in terms of casting out members who refused to follow their guidelines, thereby isolating people from their families. Christian groups have used the same practices to keep members in line. Sure all of it is voluntary but the social pressure to cooperate is to great and people get run over. These courts, councils, tribunals, committees, or whatever name you want to give them have no place in the United States. I am being told that the way of Sharia is simply a way of life so as to keep within Koranic mandates and help people lead moral lives. If this is the case then I support it; however, it needs to be kept at this level and not imposed upon or by anyone.

//criley401
10 June 2011 at 11:36 am

Criley 401- so much for your hypothesis about marrying a Muslim woman- a Muslim woman can ONLY marry a Muslim man. So, unless you convert, you’re as off-limits as a slab of bacon!

//Halima
12 June 2011 at 10:49 pm

Halima, look at the news story on Wiener in this publication: I am going to cut and paste a quote from it:

“In any case, the fact that Weiner married a Muslim woman has long been the subject of rumblings in certain corners of the right-wing blogosphere”

Did he marry a Muslim woman or not?

SoooooooWeeeeee Halima your Bacon has been cooked on this one

//criley401
13 June 2011 at 5:43 pm

There is only one reason why sharia courts are exercising any authority in the uk and it is a simple one. Many of the mosques in uk choose not to have marriages legitimised by British law. Sometimes the bride is unaware of the loophole when she enters into a marriage. In the event of a divorce the marriage cannot be ended by a civil court as the marriage was never legal so there is no alternative but to go to the sharia court to sort out the dispute between the couple.

//Salins
15 June 2011 at 2:10 am

Have your say!

Recent Posts

• Congressional Candidate Sam Aanestad reportedly said President Obama was a Muslim
• OC GOP Removes Islamophobe Deborah Pauly from her Post as Vice Chair
• Nazi graffiti on mosque in south-west France
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Sympathizes with Terrorist Anders Behring Breivik
• When Interfaith Goes Sideways

Most Popular

Tags