Archbishop says Sharia law in this country is unavoidable

[spokette]

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.

It is impolite but it is also an intelligent contribution to debate within the context of the thread.

I don't understand Cote, isn't female circumcision an islamic thing?

just kidding

No it isn't. This thread is was about sharia law in the UK. Two legal systems. So why is it necessary to insult everyone with a regligeous belief.

I could think of some really slanderous rude things to say and then label them free speech as well. But, I won't because that would be rude and serve no constructive purpose.

What I want to know is why only muslim related things tend to be in the news. You know, pigs are offensive so put Pinky and Perky away. We never hear of hindus complaining about jokey cows etcetera, etcetera

It's all bollocks I tell you, all bollocks.

We have the law of the land to which we all must/should adhere and we have spiritual guidance which you can opt in or out of.

Cote D'azur I think you are being a little disingenuous.
mt is not saying she thinks FGM is "part of islam" - sher is saying quite the opposite.
she is saying that some Muslims believe it to be part of Islamic tradition, and that some Muslims practice it and defend it for those reasons. that is true, and there continues to be debate about it among scholars and there are (I believe) conflicting fatwa

although there has been considerable efforts in the recent past to stop the practice, it really is not true to say that Islamic scholars are all united in condemning the practice.

I'm mystified as to why you keep berating MT about her lack of knowledge that female castration is not part of Islam, Cote.

She knows it's not. She's made it abundantly clear. Unfortunately, many African muslims are not as well-informed as her. And they are practising it in the name of Islam, just as christians used to practice burning heretics in the name of christianity.

Okay, point taken Blu

MT has been saying female circumcision is part of Islam for a while now, despite having been told on numerous occasions that this is not correct. She has just now changed her words into "some Muslims think it's part of Islam".

See here:

By Monkeytrousers on Thu 24-Jan-08 18:51:43
"fact that there are a lot of cultural elements within Islam (and textual ones) that are abbhorent to the tenets of liberal democracy, such as female cirsumsition and infibulation"

She seems to have learned to spell circumcision since then, but the lesson that female circumcision is NOT part of Islam, not even a cultural element of Islam, is just not sticking.

I don't think this is about 'lack of knowledge' anymore. MT's insistence on bringing up female circumcision EVERY TIME she is on a thread about Islam is beginning to look like mudslinging.

(MT - have you seen the film Moolaade by a senagalese director? here)

'Sharia law is considered to be superior to national law. The parties concerned recognise it as such. Appeals are therefore very unlikely to happen. Sharia law would be binding on a practical basis. What do you suppose would happen a woman who disputed the Sharia imposed divorce settlement before a British court' (cestlavie) - I think that this is the nub of what a lot of us were initially worried about when we heard RW's remarks.

FWIW, the Muslim Council of GB spokesman who I heard on the radio yesterday said that he and his colleagues recognise the primacy of UK law over sharia law in this country.

I do think the case of a Muslim woman who disagreed with a sharia settlement but felt unable to approach the UK authorities is an interesting and worrying one - and I don't know what the answer is.

I mean, it's just not practical or desirable to 'outlaw' all aspects of sharia practice - is it?

OK Cote we've heard you. Let's move on.

"I do think the case of a Muslim woman who disagreed with a sharia settlement but felt unable to approach the UK authorities is an interesting and worrying one - and I don't know what the answer is."

But she would be in the same position as she was to start with - there would be a route through the UK legal system, but if her family were oppressively resistant, accessing it would be the problem. With or without the intervention of a shariah negotiation.

There;s a case on the front page of the Evening Standard today (of course many papers are carrying RW's statement - the Sun has 'What a Burkha!' about him...). A teenage boy stabbed another, and was caught and on police bail. The victim's family decided to get it settled out of court and went to a local hearing - where in front of all the relatives, a compensation settlement was agreed. Presumably the boy remains on police bail...the difficulty being that the victim will probably now refuse to testify. But it would be outrageous if the police dropped the case in favour of Sharia justice.

The Jewish Beth Din 'courts' sort out many many disputes arund contracts and agrements - a bit like an ACAS service, I suppose. But don't break or contravene UK law, do they? And people still have recourse to the law of the land?

Cote, there are some texts which are used to justify FGM as it happens.
and there are some Muslim clerics who seek to justify it
there are fatwa in support of FGM
so your position is factually incorrect too, in many respects

Yes, that's pretty much my feeling blu. Similarly, you could point out that there are plenty of white, Christian-background women in abusive relationships who are too frightened to go to the police. However I do worry that I am falling prey to cultural relativism sometimes.

could i just ask exactly what is the status of women in islam?

just in case anyone has any real information on it (i'm not really interested in an 'i can't be arsed to google it but i know it must be true' kind of response).

could you tell me - are women lower than women? expected to submit to their men? stoned for adultery? half as inetlligent as a man?

is that in the koran? or is it just myth/cultural practice of the time/current cultural practice of african (muslim or christian irrespective)

or what?

intelligent

harpsi - What "texts" are you talking about?

You obviously have internet access. Find it and share it with the rest of us.

I assure you there is nothing in Quran or Hadith that would remotely justify female circumcision.

If you would like to prove me "factually incorrect", you are free to try to do so, with actual facts. Where are they?

What utter nonsense. Sharia law indeed.

Prelates should, by and large, keep their mouths firmly zipped. They are such juggins.

I think that's what is known as a million-dollar-question, pankhurst!

From 'The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions':

'In Islam, it is believed that women and men are different but equal... Women are not the source of sin... though they may be the source of particular impurity after childbirth and menstruation. Women, and mothers in particular, are deeply honoured (when Muhammad was asked whom one should most honour, he replied three times 'Your mother', and only then added 'Your father). Women have access to education and retain control of their property. At the same time, certain inequalities between women and men, together with the fact that some customs have become virtual obligations in some parts of the Muslim world, have raised questions about the implementation of Qu'ran and hadith in this area. Thus the veil (hijab)... is not required by Qu'ran, which only commands modesty in dress (24.31); the widespread practice of female circumcision is not required at all; polygamy is envisaged by the Qu'ran, but not polyandry... In any case, the authority of men over women remains, derived from two verses in particular: having affirmed mutual rights for women, 2.228 states 'But men have darajah [rank, degree, precedence] over women'... In another verse (4.34/8), it is said that men are qawwumun [standing over, having authority over] over women... and that women suspected of ill-conduct must be admonished, banished to their beds, and beaten... the beating cannot be painful and is mainly symbolic.'

Hmm. I find some of that a bit shocking actually. Mind you, the same article says that there are verses in the Bible that reaffirm traditional/cultural attitudes that lead to the subordination of women to their husbands/fathers.

That's an unpleasant and unnecessary dig pankhurst. I asked you to link. You haven't done so, I notice. I was trying not to spend all day on the internet as it happens.

Am liking the term "juggins".

Cote, I hesitate to do so as I am not by any stretch of the imagination an Islamic scholar but (for various reasons) I have learned a certain amount about FGM.

Shall we start with the reliable source that is Wikipedia . the number refer to citations.

The entry starts:

"FGC [they use the terminology Female GEnital Cutting] is not a formal Islamic religious practice, though advocates will quote hadith that mention its practice. The meaning and legitimacy of such mentions are disputed within the Islamic community.[40] Whether FGC is mandatory, permitted, optional, or forbidden in Islam is ambiguous and a matter of debate...

Sects that advocate FGC
One of the four Islamic schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that clitoridectomy is mandatory.[43] Other sects are adament about the practice. In 1994, Egyptian Mufti Sheikh Jad Al-Hâqq 'Ali Jad Al-Hâqq issued a fatwa stating, "Circumcision is mandatory for men and for women. If the people of any village decide to abandon it, the village imam must fight against them as if they had abandoned the call to prayer."[44] The Al-Azhar University in Cairo has issued several fatwas endorsing FGC, in 1949, 1951 and 1981.[45]"

There is quite a lot more on there about the religious debate and different scholarly opinions.

I can't comment on the content of that - I just don't have the background knowledge - but I have heard some pretty fierce debate over the years. as it happens, I find this kind of debate (and believe me I have heard many versions of it) nauseating and revolting in the extreme. If Muslim leaders are opposed to the idea of FGM, then what is the penalty imposed? if the appropriate penalty for adultery is stoning, then what is the appropriate penalty for slicing off a girl's genitals?

I somehow doubt that the appropriate penalty for mutilating a little girl is as heavy as that for having a shag with someone you might love but not be married to.

[pulls 'Oxford Dictionary of World Religions' back off the shelf]:

In Islam... female circumcision is not obligatory, but is nevertheless regarded by many as according to sunna - ie, customary in the strong and religious sense. It therefore has higher status than being merely a local custom.'

you'll be right there, LB.

No No No No! It is not Sunnah!