Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Archbishop says Sharia law in this country is unavoidable

313 replies

spokette · 07/02/2008 15:49

Really?

Well if it does happen (heaven help us if it does), guess who will lose out because it certainly won't be the men.

There are over 50 muslim countries in the world so if someone wants to observe sharia law, I'm sure one of them will accommodate their lifestyle choice.

My parents came from Jamaica in the 1960s and even though they retained their culture, they observed British law.

My personal opinion is that Sharia law is incompatible in a country where laws are in place to protect and uphold the rights of women because it is usually women who receive a raw deal.

There was a documentary shown a few years ago which followed a female lawyer in an African country (cannot remember which one - might have been Nigeria) who adjudicated over cases where women seeked redress in civil courts whilst their husbands went to the Sharia courts. It made me thankful to live in this country.

Also remember the case of the Muslim woman in Nigeria who was sentenced to death for having an affair with a married man which resulted in a child? He was given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.

OP posts:
dittany · 12/02/2008 13:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

idlingabout · 12/02/2008 13:32

Totally agree 'dittany' except that we aren't an all-powerful secular state at all. How can we be when the state funds faith schools and we have bishops in the house of lords? What is more, the Anglican church still has a long way to go on equal rights for women - are there any female bishops? Will there be a female Archbishop of Canterbury?

dittany · 12/02/2008 13:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SueBaroo · 12/02/2008 13:52

Oh, I agree, I don't think we do have an all-powerful secular state. I think it's a possibility (all things are possible and all that), but I don't think it's imminent.

The ABC was musing about a hypothetical issue. Which is one of the reasons this is such an irritating kerfuffle.

dittany · 12/02/2008 13:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

monkeytrousers · 12/02/2008 14:03

I agree Dittany re 'slapping the backs'; I said soemthing evry similar a few posts back after going to listen to the Bishop of Durham 'debate' The God Delusion a few weeks ago. They see the need for support now, but it's all a bit 'wolf in sheeps clothing' and once the common goal is met relations will deteriorate.

Sue, isn't abortion illegal under Sharia - or tantomount to homicide?

IB, we are mostly ruled by secularism regardless of the few religious schools - mostly tests in private ownserhip I think than religious takoevers - though that doens't mean they don't need challenging too!

TBH, I don't think I would want an 'all power' anything that veered towards totalitarianiosm. Liberal dem is as good as it gets, but it also needs lines in the sand.

Blu · 12/02/2008 14:13

The thing is, the 'one man, one woman' view of marriage - on which we base our welfare state, many laws etc etc, is also a particular model, and based, presumably, on a christian model? My objection to the multiple wives / bigamy issue is actually that it is non-reciprocally sexist.

I could easily see myself supporting a model of life-partnership that enabled, say, two lesbian women and the biological father of their children to be a 'married family' with equal rights to move, parent and pool resources as a unit, or a woman and her two husbands, or a woman and a female lover and a male lover. The idea of a two person unit in itself is not necessarily one I would ideally support just because it is the alternative to the 'multiple wives' model of some Islamic communities. The 'one man, one woman' version of a relationship is very Judeo-Christian, isn't it? To the extent that same-sex partnerships have to be called 'civil partnerships' in order to separate them from 'marriage'.

I think it's a case of 'be careful what you wish for'...and personally I could see a model for family partnerships that is not restricted to the monogamous marriage.

Blu · 12/02/2008 14:15

RE abortion - I was actually under the belief that abortion was legal within islam up until the date when the soul reputedly enters the feotus - or 'quickening' - or when movement can first be felt.

But I thhnk this has been obscured in current practice.

Blu · 12/02/2008 14:17

abortion within Islam

monkeytrousers · 12/02/2008 14:22

I dunno Blu, that sounds like the realm of queer studies which is notoriously labarythe. Humans are biologically predispised to mongamous pair bonds - as few over a lifetime. LD is in the process of acconmadating more diverse postions for homosexuals, etc. But again we have to go on averages if we don't want the system to disintegrate. Accomodations ban be made, but whwether they should be adopted into policy will have to be decided by rational debate.

monkeytrousers · 12/02/2008 14:23

sorry, labyrinth

monkeytrousers · 12/02/2008 14:27

It was on the Anmnesty International website Blu. I had read that in Afganistan or Jordan (sorry, don't have time to check now)) women have been charged with homicided for aborion and that access to contraception is extremely hard to get.

SueBaroo · 12/02/2008 17:20

dittany, I don't have a problem with a secular state, where did I say I did?

I have a problem with the notion of an all-powerful secular state in which religious freedoms are curtailed (like various communist regimes as an obvious example).

New posts on this thread. Refresh page