Honour Killings and all forms of injustices as sanctioned using Islam

by C Murray Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:25

You could put 'Honour Killings' through the Newswire and see how other writers have looked
at the issue. I had spent some time trying to make head or tail of Dr William's remarks on
Sharia. There has been a lot of reaction to his idea of 'co-existence' of religions, especially
in relation to Gender and family issues (from Muslim women writers).

I think there is a vast difference between a 'peaceful co-existence of religions'
(provided for in the Universal charter of rights - right to freedom of religious expression)
and the recognition of a system such as Sharia within the British Judicial system.

Dr Williams who provoked the row will not be resigning, the issue conflagurated just
before his enthronement .

by lulu Mon Feb 11, 2008 14:19

The Archbish is usually fairly sensible; it seems he was seeking Muslim marriage to have the status of Christian or secular marriages, but worded his message so that the media could pounce on it.
It's unfortunate that Muslims already feel besieged by Xian, Zionist & secular states, & more so since the "War on Terror" (isn't war terror?). But liberal secular states also offer an approximation of equal rights to women, and have to deal with "honour killings", which are hateful to many righteous & liberal Muslims.

by Lula Mon Feb 11, 2008 14:37

Nope, you are peddling porkies. The Archbishop wanted Sharia "law" to be incorporated into the law of England. Under Sharia "law" a womans word is worth less than a mans when giving evidence. Women are also given less in inheritances. At least "honour" killings are illegal in Western countries that is not the case in some islamic states.

by lulu Mon Feb 11, 2008 19:19

No porkies here! Why wd I bother?
Looks like the Archbish wanted some Muslim marriage & divorce proceedings to have validity, as some Jewish proceedings do in UK. Maybe his comments are naive, but he was probably seeking to reconcile Muslim men & women to Xianity after another Bish spoke of no-go Muslim areas & the media whooped it up.

by wyf of Bath Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:00

The first comment by Lulu is incorrect. it does not fit the archbishop's profile or bio
to make such imflammatory remarks about human rights.

if he wrote something controversial so that the media would pounce on it, it shows
a complete disregard for accepted human rights of women. it shows a need for self
publicity just before enthronement that does not mind causing unwonted distress
to a large section of the Muslim community in Britain.

He should apologise for that distress.
But he will not do so publically, but alone to members of the African Anglican Communion
and in Private.

I would imagine that his abstraction shows a theological grasp of life and not any real
approach to rights, sure isn't he lucky to have climbed so high that he does not have
to worry about distressing people who must deal with the issues on a life or death basis?

by Lula Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:01

Sorry, I misinterpeted your motivation. But there would still be serious problems: as the law stands you cannot sign your rights away. But if Sharia family "law" in any form was adopted into English Law then it would be a different case. Under Sharia "law" women have less inheritance rights than men, they have a leser right to divorce than men, they have less rights to custody of children, their word as a witness is only worth a quarter of that of a man.

How could Sharia "law" be be assimilated into English Law without seriously eroding the financial and human rights of women?

by tomeile Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:53

"How could Sharia "law" be be assimilated into English Law without seriously eroding the financial and human rights of women?"

With a clause saying that the introduction of any aspect of sharia law will not override existing equality legislation .

by Lula Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:09

"With a clause saying that the introduction of any aspect of sharia law will not override existing equality legislation ."

Then it wouldn't be Sharia "law". The whole basis of Sharia "law" is that women are inferior to men. Don't bother pretending otherwise. There should be no place in a civilised Legal Code for the ravings of desert "prophets" be they Christian, Islamic or Jewish.

Reason Routs Religion!

by Wyf Of Bath Tue Feb 12, 2008 13:10

The Wyf is quite a character with her multiple husbands and her absolute rejection
of dogmatic religion, she appears again in the Voice of penelope in Ulyssess.
'Rocks to that'

of course these famous creatures were created by men- but anti-dogmatism does
not necessarily reject religion, it rejects the crystallisation of religion within materialist
systems such as canonical catholicism which thinks child abuse is 'aberrant'
and does not accept the convention of rights for women or children. much as
Materialistic islam rejects the individuality of woman.

its profit based twisting of legal systems to enhance the egotistical demands of men
who would sit on the arse and dream of virgins in paradise rather than allow a woman's
voice and expertise be heard. (a bit like what Rowan Williams has achieved,
an abstract and purely rational approach to mutuality in co-existence of religions
without a nod to the human rights hard won by women and he has not apologised
for the distress he has caused to Muslim wome)n. We should be looking at Blair's
reform of the Lords btw , he refused to take seats from Bishops, thus they do have
legislative power (which makes lovely england quite theocratic in it's approach to
law)

=we do not bishops in the senate... (thank whomever)

by tomeile Tue Feb 12, 2008 13:41

"There should be no place in a civilised Legal Code for the ravings of desert "prophets" be they Christian, Islamic or Jewish."

The basis of all law in all patriachal societies is misogynist ,but you single out Islam .You didn’t put “civilised legal code “ in inverted commas like you did the word “law “ when you referred to sharia “law” and that suggests that you consider existing English law to be a civilized legal code .

English law is premised on Christian precepts . Constitutionally it is specifically protestant , Roman Catholics and those who marry Roman Catholics are barred from ascending the British throne "for ever”. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the chief religious figure in the Church of England while the British sovereign is the "Supreme Governor" of the church and its primary leader .All laws in Britain are subject to royal assent - i.e the assent of the head of the Church of England.
.

by Lula Tue Feb 12, 2008 14:01

But English Law is not decided upon by religious experts. Its passed by a democratically elected parliament. The bishops of the CoE cannot over rule any law passed by the commons. A few CoE bishops are in the Lords, thats it. Its sectarian that RCs cannot take the throne in England but I stand for abolishing the monarchy.

But the Sharia "law" is supposedly the word of god. Ordinary people dont get a say in changing its interpretation, that is reserved for religious "experts".

All laws in Ireland have to get the assent of the President. If the President refused to sign a bill then there would be a constitutional crisis, the same would occur in England.

by cordelia Tue Feb 12, 2008 19:06

Dear Moslems who have come to Ireland,

Ireland is a liberal democracy. All citizens, irrespective of sex, colour or faith are held in equal regard by the law, and all are subject to the same law. The same principles apply to all non-citizens who reside here - (except, of necessity, for those rules which relate to their right to reside here).

Liberal democracy respects personal autonomy - particularly in the area of sexual and personal behaviour. Liberal democracy sets a higher value on fredom of expression than on preserving religious sensitivities. If fatwas, honour-killings, the right to arrange marriages for your female children, FGM, and the dowry-system are your thing, you have come to the wrong country. If criticism of your religion demands that you threaten the life of people with whom you disagree, you need to find some other land more tolerant of your "right" to visit violence on your fellow-man (or woman).

We in Europe derive our values from Christianity, the enlightenment, and the great modernist and post-modernest philosophies of our culture. We hold our values dear. They are what make us relatively free and prosperous - in particular our women. You cannot dine a la carte on our society - accepting the economic benefits while rejecting the social and philosophical foundations upon which our freedom and prosperity depends.

Recognizing in our laws the right of the Mullahs to define the status of other Moslems is to deliver Moslem women into the power of vicious mysogynistic tyrants, and to deprive Moslem women of their legal protection from tyranny.

Now is the time for new laws to counter the looming threat. We need legislation to specifically criminalize dowries, threats to force arranged marriages, and all the other objectionable foreign practices which are being imported as an unwanted by-product of immigration.

by C Murray Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:41

An open letter to Muslims in Ireland attached to an article by an activist who has lived in Ireland
and was very concerned at issues of Human Rights in the context of both Honour Killing,
and the address by Dr Rowan Williams on inclusion of elements of Sharia within the
British Judicial system ( or their recognition) is not an invitation to vent race hate, nor is
it an opportunity to laud our political and legal system.

Nora is well able to answer these issues on her own, being an educated and politically
active woman, but I wish to address one or two things of concern in the above comment,
as an Irish Woman and as someone who is politically active.

I do not feel that we can laud our liberal democracy , there are many problems with
equality and equal treatment that are not discussed. There are problems with access
to basic rights of education and health care, there are problems with access to
disability services and there is little in the way of measurable progress in relation
to gender equality at all levels of decision-making. Nora has spoken here and in other
threads on the importance of human rights , those rights include rights to religious
expression (which is wholly different to theocratic interferences in individual rights
to grow and learn no matter what gender you happen to be).

'You cannot dine a la Carte on our society' is probably the most abusive thing
I have read on this newswire- it does not acknowledge any of the rights hard won
by people or acknowledge the Laws of both Europe and the Universal Charter.
It does not acknowledge the legislation of protection for those who seek to live
and work here, nor does it acknowledge the difficulties from where people have emerged.

Its ungenerous. and since it does not even attempt to engage with the issues
that comprise the article or comments, its derailment also.

by Sceptic Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:05

"There should be no place in a civilised Legal Code for the ravings of desert "prophets" be they Christian, Islamic or Jewish."

Only Islam is a desert religion. Both Judaism and Christianity sprang from the Jordan valley area which is not arid. Moreover the founders of Judaism and Christianity were level headed and articulate people, not “raving” ones.

“English law is premised on Christian precepts.”
That is only one influence and arguably not at all the dominant one. Roman and Anglo Saxon common law were more influential and the Magna Carta had nothing to do with Christianity. The vestigial anti-catholic laws only apply to monarchical succession which is a special case in any event that does not constitute egregious discrimination. It is only described as sectarian by those who are themselves somewhat bigoted. It’s a case of deciding to be offended about something. Some provisions of this kind are inevitable where one has both an established church and a monarchy as in much of Scandinavia.

Ms C Murray - as a self described educated woman you should know that Islam is not a race and therefore you should not have described Cordelia’s post as “racist”.

by Lula Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:19

"Only Islam is a desert religion. Both Judaism and Christianity sprang from the Jordan valley area which is not arid"

Now Sceptic, study a little harder. Ever hear of Moses who got his most important messages "from god" when he was wandering in the Desert? It was traditional for both Jewish & Christian prophets to mortify themselves by withdrawing into the desert and fasting. Thats when they had the best visions. According to the Gospels even Jesus did this.

by C Murray Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:28

The most racist statment that I have ever read I clearly identified as;-

"You cannot dine a La carte on our society'

That has nothing to do with either the original article nor the comments; and is profoundly
racist. it has nothing to do with the newsworthiness of the original post and it defines
so-called 'Liberal democracies' as superior, through their advancement and definition,
be it through the 'enlightenment' and the 'great modernist and post-modernist philosophies'
of our culture. I do not think that we are that advanced in terms of our humanity when
we force our culture and religion onto a diaspora.Nor do I think we are advanced when our
infrastructure in health and education cares for one half of that society (?).

The article was about Dr Williams and Sharia Law.
The article was about Honour Killing.

It was not about Liberal democracies and autonomy that fail to recognise basic
rights, but about civilisational advancements that neglect rights in their empty and
unappealing self-congragulatory superiority that is fundamentally racist.

by Sceptic Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:36

Lula withdrawing into the desert for a period of reflection is not the same as being a “raving” desert profit. In any case Moses had his formative years in Memphis, not the Sinai. These are not desert religions in any sense.

Ms. C. Murray – I cannot see how upholding the superiority of liberal democracy would be racist. Besides one has to be frank about some things. FMG which you would oppose is not a native Irish practice nor a European one. It is an Afro Islamic practice which by definition can only be introduced into Ireland by people from that part of the globe. It is not racist to say this it is acknowledging reality a part of which is giving asylum to natives of these places or their daughters at risk of this practice

by tomeile Wed Feb 13, 2008 15:05

"the Magna Carta had nothing to do with Christianity."

You really should check things up Sceptic . The Magna Carta's main architect was Archbishop Stephen Langton a man said to have been " so holy he put all Rome to shame". Its first 'chapter ' states:

"In the first place [we] have granted to God and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and liberties unimpaired ... ."

This is from the wikipedia entry on the Magna Carta:

"At the time of John’s reign there was still a great deal of controversy as to how the Archbishop of Canterbury was to be elected, although it had become traditional that the monarch would appoint a candidate with the approval of the monks of Canterbury.
But in the early 13th century, the bishops began to want a say. To retain control, the monks elected one of their numbers to the rôle. But John, incensed at his lack of involvement in the proceedings, sent John de Gray, the Bishop of Norwich, to Rome as his choice. Pope Innocent III declared both choices invalid and persuaded the monks to elect Stephen Langton
Nevertheless, John refused to accept this choice and exiled the monks from the realm. Infuriated, Innocent ordered an interdict (prevention of public worship — mass, marriages, the ringing of church bells, etc.) in England in 1208, excommunicated John in 1209, and encouraged Philip to invade England in 1212.
John finally backed down and agreed to endorse Langton and allow the exiles to return. "

by Nora Wed Feb 13, 2008 16:48 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Hi Cordelia & C; I'm concerned no more with the origin argument. It's so divisive! Let's move on; and focus on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights values and principles. That will be the key future struggle towards social justice that includes for true equality and true freedom, for all, above racial, religious and ultra-nationalist politics. In an already globalized and interlinked world, we need solidarity towards such universal values and beliefs rather than focusing about origin of those values. We need to learn from history but in harmonious balance let's move on with progressive ideas from those history , West or East, and leave out the destructive ones, like fascism, racism and religious extremism. All these negative ideology stirred up since the beginning of Capitalism since the late 15th. century until today; its most potent psychological weapon to keep barbaric and unjust wars keep on happening! So Sceptic; take note!

by Cordelia Wed Feb 13, 2008 19:10

Nowhere did I argue that liberal democracy or Western society is perfect. Neither did I argue that Western societies always adhere to their own ideals.

What I did argue (and it is bang on the point with respect to the disingenuous and arcane argument made by the batty bishop) is that:

1. Giving power to Moslems to determine the legal status of Moslems is to deliver Moslem women into the hands of the Mullahas.

2. That liberal democracy is not an accidental conglomeration of norms appropriate only to homogenously Christian (or post-Judeo-Christian) societies but has at its foundation a clear and coherent philosophy based on economic and social autonomy.

3. That immigrants coming to our society cannot take the economic benefits and reject the right of their female kindred to enjoy the autonomy which is at the root of our social and economic system.

Put bluntly. You CANNOT dine a la carte on our society because WE demand you observe our standards and laws - including the laws that determine status and rights (particularly in the treatment of women) it you chose to live here.

If this is a problem for Nora she should go to Saudi Arabia and enjoy the standards which apply to women there.

by C. Wed Feb 13, 2008 19:17

he applies the external controls of religion to society, he did not focus on the finer points
of Islam but on Sharia Law.
he did not apologise.
The post by Noor is quite simple, it is a paragraph long with operating links to
the items that she wrote on as an asian woman.

I do not know her religion- how and ever.

She is correct in wanting to address the issues and elicit comments as many modern
women of many faiths have in the UK, who have had to deal with this abstract and silly
nonsense- it becomes no longer 'batty' or abstract when it is seen as a useful system
of control and has - absolutely nothing to do with the peaceful co-existence of religions-
interestingly muslim women in the EU/US/UK have responded but one who has
lived and worked in this country is treated on this newswire with less than contempt
it shows an inflexibility and unwillingness to confront issues (is it insularity or are irish
people not capable of understanding that we too have travelled from untenable
political and social sitautions also?)

by Nora Wed Feb 13, 2008 22:35 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Cordelia, I'm trying to be civilized to another woman so that we can be in solidarity together fighting for women's rights as C intelligently and wisely recognizes; but obviously your religious fanatically batty mind got the best of you! Liberal democracy and universal human rights - thanks to SECULARISM! And that's the cherished western values I admire!

by cordelia Wed Feb 13, 2008 23:37

Unfortunately your grasp of what is civilized is as flimsy as your coherence.

You are confused. Liberal democracy accepts religion and secularism, subject to the rule of law and without preferring one over the other. The philosophical roots of LD derive both from Judeo-christian ethical values and the very secularist enlightenment. It has latterly evolved in a more contested era of, first, modernism, and now, post-modernism.

If you consider straight and honest speech rude, that is your problem. I believe that LD is inherently superior to the alternatives. The fact that people fleeing persecution and economic opportunity usually head for the LDs of this world (rather than to societies with alternative world-views) tends to substantiate my claim as to the superiority of Liberal democracy, rude or not to say so.

Liberal democracy is also worth defending, particularly if you are a woman, because however imperfect it is, or badly observed its ideals, it is infinitely superior to the alternatives.

So, whether you consider me rude, I don't much care. But I believe that our society and values are worth defending against the grim regressive and mysogynistic forces that see such horrors as Fatwas, FGM, arranged marriages, doweries, honour-killings, et al as either normal or as mere quaint expressions of some anything-goes bogus multiculturalism.

Frankly, if it takes a bit of rudeness to awake your critical faculties, so be it.

by Nora Thu Feb 14, 2008 09:28 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Well, I'm sick of you religious fanatically defending your Christian values. Was this the same Christian values that massacred so many Catholics in Ireland including herding them in a church and burning them them alive in Drogheda? Yes, Just like the Muslim or the Jewish elite-capitalist class using religion to crush any dissent; including sexist male idiots in Islam using Islam to crush any female dissent! Cromwell, the general of the British ruling class used so-called Christian Protestantism to commit the genocide of Irish Catholics; actually to justify capitalist imperialism of Ireland as the true socialist and Irish Independence leader James Connolly brilliantly recognized. thus why he united both Catholics and Protestants in the 1916 Revolution.

Further, wasn't it the same Christian (Evangelical) values that Bush and Blair used to justify the genocide currently going on now in Iraq? Yes, get it out of your religiously batty mind that when religion is politicized, it'll be batty and dangerous as anything; like you! That's why women who wants to have abortion in Ireland are still banned from doing so despite that it's our private life for god-less sake!

That's why I'm proposing to enhance struggle in the future above race, religion and ultra-nationalism, for social justice based on secular and universal human rights values. By the way, some of my friends in Ireland include nuns and priests! So get a rational, sane and truly enlightened grip!

by cordelia Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:29

You are obviously a bit slow.

The roots and evolution of LD are a different matter from what it now is.

(Once again), no one is arguing that western politians and societies have always lived up to the ideals of LD. Western societies have frequently turned their backs on their own heritage (the Nazis and Soviets, for example). Western governments have frequently betrayed the ideals of LD. The foreign policy of the West (particularly towards Islamic nations) is often brutal and hyprocritical.

This argument (and you have obviously lost the thread somewhere) is about something else entirely.
It is about the observance of values and the rule of law within our own societies.

I will make it simple for you. Put yourself in the place of a woman who is threatened with FGM in Ireland because it is an acceptable practice in her community. Put yourself in the place of a girl who returns from school to discover that she it to be put on the next plane to Talibanistan where she is to marry her first-cousin, the 50 year old goat-herd. Put yourself in the place of a woman who must tell her non-Moslem boyfriend that if she ever sees him again her brother and father will butcher her. Do you get it now? Well? now do you hold all value-systems in equal esteem?

The West has been brutal and hypocritical in its foreign-policy towards the Islamic world. It has also been far too slow to insist that immigrant communities observe the LD values of the societies to which they have come for protection, socially, or for economic reasons.

Incidentally, Cordelia is an agnostic.

by Nora Thu Feb 14, 2008 13:15 noorazao at hotmail dot com

Listen here! I'm sick of your rudeness, that's not very Christian isn't it?! And you're the slow batty one; I'm talking about upholding women's rights and social justice in Islam and in any religion for that matter! Not about upholding your Christian-oriented liberal democracy & attacking "Muslims" as if a race ok! Obviously you can't seem to analyze deeply intellectually and critically; just shallow/narrow-wise. I've a religion but I believe in secularism, in order to be fair and just to all; the world doesn't just belong to religious manias like you! And by the way; you don't seem to use the same kind of rudeness to C there; is it because you know I'm not western and hence fair game to your fanatical Christian manias abuses!

by Cordelia Thu Feb 14, 2008 21:03

I personally don't care how Moslems behave in Moslem countries. However, I do believe that Moslems have a right to run Moslem countries as they see fit and without Western intervention. When westerners go to Moslem countries they should not transgress the local norms. If Nora or anybody else disagrees with the manner in which Moslem polities treat their womenfolk that's her business not mine. Best of luck to her if she wants to take on the mullahs.

My only interest is that when people come here from countries with different value-systems they adhere to OUR norms. At the heart of Liberal Democracy is a concept known as "The Rule of Law". This simply means that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law, and the one legal system determines rights and status. It also so happens that in Western countries that one legal system is validated by legislatures elected by the people rather than old men with beards and ancient books.

We do not recognize the right of immigrant communities with alien value-systems to apply or enforce norms, even within their own communities, which are repugnant to our norms.

Our Western values of personal autonomy for all were hard won and are worth fighting for, and we should apologise to no one for so doing.

by pat c Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:17

This is from an article by Maryam Namazie an Iranian Socialist Feminist. I think iy fits better in this thread rather than starting a seperate one. Full text at the link.

The Council of ex-Muslims of Britain condemns the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting that Sharia law is 'inevitable' and may be welcome in civil cases.

The distinction he makes between civil and criminal cases does not exist within Sharia law which encompasses all aspects of the life of those deemed Muslim. In the discriminatory personal family law a Muslim woman cannot even contract her own marriage; the marriage contract is between her guardian and husband. A man can divorce his wife without reasons by simply saying 'divorce' thrice, albeit with a gap in time, whereas a woman must give reasons. A woman only receives half that of a man under inheritance rules.

Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights, such as equal rights for women, and relegates those deemed to be ‘Muslim’ to culturally relative rights and at the mercy of regressive imams and kangaroo courts. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.

by gurgle Sat Feb 16, 2008 01:23

There have been numerous community exceptions in organic law & application of statutes in modern British history. The archbishop of Canterbury's speeches have excited responses which would typify those of swamp-fascists as much as it has excited alarm from those on the usually liberal or libertarian wing of society. I feel obliged to correct the usual "Sceptic" piece of drivel up the page - though it's nice to see that s/he (I suspect he given the appalling attitude to rape shown on another current thread) is finally taking time to learn something about legal history & jurisprudence. But a little knowledge is a terrible thing amongst the dim. Roman law as it is termed is a series of codices which find their source in the reign of Justinian, a Christian who sought to regulate both church of rome by then two centuries after Constantine most definitely an imperial religion as the mishmash of laws, torts, penal guidelines & rights which had been argued over for years. I'd point the casual reader to the most notable debate by the governor of Britian during the reign of Caesar Trajan, or if that's too far back in the dim depths of time & the casual reader is sure things have like process & the type of people who become lawyers or cops have changed for the better since - I'd just move on to shooting down the other piece of "sceptic" crap. - the "desert religion" thing. Islam dates itself from the Hegira and the "the migration of Muhammad PBUH and his followers to the city of Medina in 622 (Common Era). You'll be glad to know that city is as fertile and well watered & un-desert like as the Jordon valley yerman swampfascist Sceptic thinks Judaism & Christianity began in. As usual he's wrong - Judaism holds its beginning as the convenant between Abraham and God (JHVH) after Abraham a native of Ur (in the desert) had been brought from modern day Iraq (very fertile) across the desert to the land of Canaan which is the modern day Gaza strip. Not much water there. At that time Canaan didn't include the later territory of the jordan river or what is called the "west bank" and would't do so even under Solomon who is recorded quite specifically as being gifted slave labour from the kings of that territory which would in due time be known as Samaria when Christ came along to hang on the cross for your sins & impatience with swampfascists in general.

nobody else has ever provoked me into such a patronising paroxysm

Anyway - having read the first statement & later clarification by the archbishop of Canterbury & having been aware of his thoughts on the matter for many years, & having seen the hurt & confusion & alienation felt by muslim women whose divorce rights under the final sutra of the Quran have awaited years of legal process for a man in a wig to bang a gavel - I must say I think Rowan Williams is onto something. But people in Ireland would probably be better getting Sikhs & turbans into the Gardai first.

by Trendspotter Sat Feb 16, 2008 03:04

We in Ireland should be watching the debates taking place elsewhere. We should avoid the loud arguments of extreme secularism and religious fundamentalism.

An editorial in The Economist points out: "Even in determinedly secular states like France and the United States, the political authorities often find that they are obliged, in various ways, to cope with the social reality of religious belief. America's Amish community, fundamentalists who eschew technology, has generally managed to get around the law with respect to social security, child labour and education. In France, town halls serving large Muslim populations ignore secular principles as they get involved in the ritual slaughter of sheep."

Check out the entire piece, an example of British pragmatic thinking which responds to Archbishop Rowan Williams's recently misreported speech. http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaysto...96111

by gurgle Sat Feb 16, 2008 16:32

Those are the four areas, I'd suggest inter-cultural types thinking about Sharia & its inclusion or acceptance focus on. Anyway at the link people can read what Rowan Wliliams said - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7239567.stm It's now turning into a kite flying exercise, which like most of Williams time in the see of Canterbury must be seen in context. The context is anglicanism (or what I call anglikhanism) opening up a different front in contemporary theological debate than that very obviously being won by Ratzinger (of those I call the kathurlicks). But most people seem to missing the essential problem which sharia has always had since the days of the hadith;- who sits on the "supreme court"? In more beautiful times of intellectual debate, (now almost completely forgotten about) the hadith, sutra, talmud, justinian law &c. were discussed openly & sincerely in Europe & further afield that debate even included confucian law. But we're not getting that sort of chinwagging & wise beardie shite today......... are we? I for one would like to see the other anglican "see", that of York get more publicity for provocatively gurgling. Sure he's the only black archbishop in Europe, black protestants are great.

by Cordelia Sat Feb 16, 2008 20:17

Rowan Williams seems to be suggesting (his speech was so arcane that it is difficult to ascertain exactly what he had in mind) that Moslems should be allowed to have a parallel legal system (somewhat like the Catholic Marriage Tribunal) which would have the right to determine (inter alia) the marital status and inheritance rightsof Moslems, and whose determinations would be recognized as legally binding.

Firstly: The Catholic Marriage Tribunal and its decisions have no status or effect under the law of the land. If the CMT "annuls" your marriage", the marriage is still valid and subsisting under the law, and the parties are still husband and wife for purposes of inheritance.

Secondly: The law of the land is made by the people and changed by the people. It reflects the values of an electorate where all persons as human beings are equal. The internal codes of religious faiths are not democratic. Islamic law in particular discriminates against women in a manner which is unacceptable to Western citizens to the extent that it would be unimaginable to allow even women who said they agreed to submit to it to have their rights determined according to Islamic law.

Thirdly: The record shows that in its word and practice Islamic law is repugnant to Western norms as regards autonomy, personal private behaviour, and freedom of expression.

Fourthly: The record shows that Islamic social values are inherently mysogynistic to the extent that our law could never trust women who are claimed by their Imams to have freely submitted to Islamic law to have done so freely.

Archbishop Williams has done us a favour by alerting us to a terrible and looming danger. There are now people coming into our society who do not subscribe to our most fundamental norms. They are committed and dedicated to alien and repugnant ideas. Liberal Democracy is not a codeword for "anything goes". It is a codeword for a particular set of very distinct set of individual rights and values based on personal autonomy. These hard won rights are signifiers of the only societies on our planet in which women are free, equal, and respected as full persons. Our laws and values are superior and are worth defending against the primitive forces of ignorance and repression railed against them with every atom of our beings.

Immigrants must be left in no doubt that Western women will never submit to repression again and if they want a society in which "their" women are satraps they have come to the wrong place.

I extend a welcome to all immigrants who accept our norms. The others should be encouraged towards the door.