Application of sharia law by country

[Aella_]

I'm not a 'political poster' and my expertize in this area is pretty limitted. To make things even more confusing, the massmedia and the online debates appear to be split into two extreme positions. Not much middle-ground.

I would be interested in reading posters' views on this (if anyone cares to comment). Particularly with regards to Germany.
Thanks.

 

[Aella_]

"Application of sharia law by country"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country


"Since the early Islamic states of the eighth and ninth centuries, sharia always existed alongside other normative systems.

Within Sharia law, some crimes are known as the hudud crimes, for which there are specific penalties specified by Islam. For example, adultery is punished by stoning, fornication and the consumption of alcohol by lashing, and theft by the amputation of limbs.

The adoption and demand for sharia in the legal system of nations with significant Muslim-minorities is an active topic of international debate, and an active goal of Islamist movements globally."

 

[geronimo_appleby]

there's little middle-ground as far as sharia is concerned.

it's a retrograde, even retarded, step to take.

 

[Rachel_X]

I'm not sure I'd want a system of laws that would see me stoned to death just for being who I am.
I mean call me biased if you must but I personally would like to see anyone that even suggests introducing sharia law shot in the face.

 

[Aella_]

there's little middle-ground as far as sharia is concerned.

it's a retrograde, even retarded, step to take.

Thanks.
I'm a regular GB poster and, as one might easily guess, posters there are Extremely polarized in there in their opinion on Islam and so on. I lean more towards the 'conservative' perspective on this.
And given that the Political forum has a different mode of operating, I was interested to see their perspective.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Thanks.
I'm a regular GB poster and, as one might easily guess, posters there are Extremely polarized in there in their opinion on Islam and so on. I lean more towards the 'conservative' perspective on this.
And given that the Political forum has a different mode of operating, I was interested to see their perspective.

whose conservative perspective? western or islamic?

 

[Aella_]

Oops… I have a strange feeling where this is going.
I'm just interested in this topic, which is perfectly appropriate in my case.

 

[oggbashan]

Sharia in the UK is part of a conciliation system for civil disputes. That system covers a multitude of organisations, many not religious.

IF the parties agree to a particular form of conciliation then the result of that conciliation is legally binding on the parties. BUT while Sharia can be fair and impartial between two men, or two complete families, it is unbalanced (or can be unbalanced depending on the particular version of Sharia) between a man and a woman.

What ISIS/Daesh see as Sharia is a perverse and rigid medieval system. Sharia can mean many things depending on its interpretation in a particular Muslim sect or in a country.

In the UK Sharia does not supersede or replace UK laws. Only in the conciliation cases does it have any vestige of legality, along with two blokes agreeing in a public house for the Landlord to settle an argument between them... Sharia conciliation and the Landlord are equally valid.

 

[Aella_]

Sharia in the UK is part of a conciliation system for civil disputes. That system covers a multitude of organisations, many not religious.

IF the parties agree to a particular form of conciliation then the result of that conciliation is legally binding on the parties. BUT while Sharia can be fair and impartial between two men, or two complete families, it is unbalanced (or can be unbalanced depending on the particular version of Sharia) between a man and a woman.

What ISIS/Daesh see as Sharia is a perverse and rigid medieval system. Sharia can mean many things depending on its interpretation in a particular Muslim sect or in a country.

In the UK Sharia does not supersede or replace UK laws. Only in the conciliation cases does it have any vestige of legality, along with two blokes agreeing in a public house for the Landlord to settle an argument between them... Sharia conciliation and the Landlord are equally valid.

Many thanks, Oggbashan.
Despite the ongoing controversies in the media and such, I only thought about reading about sharia law in Europe today.

What baffles me is the fact that UK and Germany seem to be aproaching this issue in different ways . (See light green versus red colour in the legend). --- mind you, I'm not too knowledgeable as to law or civic matters, so I might have got it wrong,

Isn't Germany taking a risky route and setting a precedent?
And even if UK seemed to be more cautious, should Sharia law even be allowed to exist on paper -so to speak- in the UK?

Because:
1.It is, as you said, a perverse and outdated medieval system.
2.Not good to set any precedent in such serious matters.
3.It's mere existence in Europe might in fact increase the anti-islam sentiment. Because some uninformed people might equate Sharia followers with All muslims, including the peaceful moderate muslim.

 

[Rachel_X]

Germany love to seem open, accepting and friendly these days in what I suspect is an attempt to shrug off old stereotypes. It'll end up backfiring on them though as plenty of people will take advantage of that.

It shouldn't exist in the UK either.
When you move to a country you should follow their laws, not just make your own up.

 

[Liar]

Germany love to seem open, accepting and friendly these days in what I suspect is an attempt to shrug off old stereotypes. It'll end up backfiring on them though as plenty of people will take advantage of that.

It shouldn't exist in the UK either.
When you move to a country you should follow their laws, not just make your own up.

They are following UK laws and they are not just making their own up.

It's a legal set of arbitrarion parameters for those who consent to it. Think membership rules in a private club.

 

[oggbashan]

Many thanks, Oggbashan.
Despite the ongoing controversies in the media and such, I only thought about reading about sharia law in Europe today.

What baffles me is the fact that UK and Germany seem to be aproaching this issue in different ways . (See light green versus red colour in the legend). --- mind you, I'm not too knowledgeable as to law or civic matters, so I might have got it wrong,

Isn't Germany taking a risky route and setting a precedent?
And even if UK seemed to be more cautious, should Sharia law even be allowed to exist on paper -so to speak- in the UK?

Because:
1.It is, as you said, a perverse and outdated medieval system.
2.Not good to set any precedent in such serious matters.
3.It's mere existence in Europe might in fact increase the anti-islam sentiment. Because some uninformed people might equate Sharia followers with All muslims, including the peaceful moderate muslim.

The colour markings are contradictory. In practice the application of Sharia in the UK and Germany is similar - a voluntary system that only works on civil disputes between people who agree to use it, and as I said, just as legal as the Pub Landlord/Bar owner giving his/her opinion.

But we need to define the word Sharia. What it means can be very different in different strands of Islam, and in different countries, and is no more defined than the word 'law' which can go as far as including Murphy's Law.

What the fundamentalists, not just Daesh but other rigid Muslim groups, want is to introduce the medieval version - stoning adulterous women, chopping the hand off a thief, etc. The majority of Muslims don't recognise that as Sharia. What they see as Sharia is a way of meeting their religious obligations and accommodating financial and civil laws to comply with their religion.

For example a religious Muslim cannot pay interest on a loan. That would be usury, banned by the Old Testament, and was illegal for Christians in medieval times which is why Jews were Europe's bankers. But there are Sharia financial agreements which allow a loan within the religious requirements. Most banks in Europe can offer Sharia-compliant financing. It is slightly complex but the principles are well known (and can be googled).

We are confusing a minimal tweaking of civil and financial laws to suit Muslims with the ancient draconian Sharia system that Daesh want.

As an aside, most Daesh and Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers have seriously contravened their version of Sharia by taking drugs, alcohol and indulging in sex with captive women. If full Sharia were to be applied to them, they would be executed. BUT - if they become a martyr by being killed in battle or being a suicide bomber - all their sins against Sharia are wiped out and they THINK they go straight to heaven as pious, sin-free Muslims. That is a more attractive scenario than the dubious claim on a number of virgins.

 

[Aella_]

I just came across this article. If one disregards the source, it seems pretty neutral and balanced.
Notably, almost none of the mainstream serious publications discussed the issue of Sharia law in Europe.

From my pov.and from what some people said, there seems to be a blackout of certain info. in the mainstream media. Might be driven by a fear of the growing anti-Islam sentiment and some of the racism existent in Europe. Who knows…



Sharia courts creating dual justice system in UK?
https://www.rt.com/uk/328366-uk-sharia-court-law/

“We believe that Sharia courts discriminate against women and especially against Muslim women,” Nazira Mahmari, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, told RT. We want all women to have the right to access the mainstream system,” she added.

It is said there are some 85 such courts in Britain, but the actual number is unknown, Reuters reports.
Their supporters say much of the criticism concerning these justice systems is due to ignorance about how much power they wield.
There are many Sharia councils that are operating under the radar who do not have any kind of transparency.

Home Secretary Teresa May launched an inquiry into these religious councils last month.
"The government is committed to an independent review to understand the extent to which Sharia may be being misused, or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law in the UK.

However, there are fears that if all Sharia courts were to be closed down, they would just appear underground, making it harder for them to be regulated."

 

[oggbashan]

They are following UK laws and they are not just making their own up.

It's a legal set of arbitrarion parameters for those who consent to it. Think membership rules in a private club.

If two people in the UK, or Germany, decide that they want the civil dispute between them settled by the toss of a coin, or cutting high in a pack of cards, that agreement is just as legal as Sharia in those countries. Not more, not less.

It depends on the participants deciding on a method of settling a dispute. Once they have both agreed, the result is binding on them. In practice, Sharia as practised in the UK is probably fairer than tossing a coin, because those 'judging' the case are experienced elders in their mosque.

But a coin toss or cutting a pack of cards could be fairer to women. The real point is that BOTH parties have to agree for Sharia arbitration to apply. Most Muslim women in the UK would be well advised NOT to agree.

The other difference is cost. A civil case in a UK court needs serious money from each of the disputants. A Sharia arbitration, like all civil arbitration, or a tossed coin, is affordable.

 

[oggbashan]

I just came across this article. If one disregards the source, it seems pretty neutral and balanced.
Notably, almost none of the mainstream serious publications discussed the issue of Sharia law in Europe.

From my pov.and from what some people said, there seems to be a blackout of certain info. in the mainstream media. Might be driven by a fear of the growing anti-Islam sentiment and some of the racism existent in Europe. Who knows…



Sharia courts creating dual justice system in UK?
https://www.rt.com/uk/328366-uk-sharia-court-law/

“We believe that Sharia courts discriminate against women and especially against Muslim women,” Nazira Mahmari, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, told RT. We want all women to have the right to access the mainstream system,” she added.

It is said there are some 85 such courts in Britain, but the actual number is unknown, Reuters reports.
Their supporters say much of the criticism concerning these justice systems is due to ignorance about how much power they wield.
There are many Sharia councils that are operating under the radar who do not have any kind of transparency.

Home Secretary Teresa May launched an inquiry into these religious councils last month.
"The government is committed to an independent review to understand the extent to which Sharia may be being misused, or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law in the UK.

However, there are fears that if all Sharia courts were to be closed down, they would just appear underground, making it harder for them to be regulated."

The women are right to be concerned. Some UK Sharia courts treat them as less than men. But as I have said in other posts, the people with a dispute have to AGREE to use Sharia. Women should NOT.

But family pressure could force women to agree to Sharia arbitration when it is against their interest. That is a different issue and is part of cultural heritage. In the UK no woman should be forced to agree to something she doesn't want.

 

[Aella_]

The women are right to be concerned. Some UK Sharia courts treat them as less than men. But as I have said in other posts, the people with a dispute have to AGREE to use Sharia. Women should NOT.

But family pressure could force women to agree to Sharia arbitration when it is against their interest. That is a different issue and is part of cultural heritage. In the UK no woman should be forced to agree to something she doesn't want.

Good points that could lead to other interesting discussions, thanks.

 

[Liar]

If two people in the UK, or Germany, decide that they want the civil dispute between them settled by the toss of a coin, or cutting high in a pack of cards, that agreement is just as legal as Sharia in those countries. Not more, not less.

A bit of a tangent, but I wonder what the limits of that is.

Can two gentmemen mutually agree to settle a dispute in fisticuffs?

 

[Wrong Element]

They are following UK laws and they are not just making their own up.

It's a legal set of arbitrarion parameters for those who consent to it. Think membership rules in a private club.

I don't really see why that should be anyone's business. Similar proceedings exist in many religions, with zero controversy.

The problem is that the huge majority of Americans hear the word "sharia" and they assume the Constitution is going to be abandoned in favor of ayatollahs writing traffic tickets. The ignorance is both ridiculous and totally predictable.

 

[Aella_]

I don't really see why that should be anyone's business. Similar proceedings exist in many religions, with zero controversy.

The problem is that the huge majority of Americans hear the word "sharia" and they assume the Constitution is going to be abandoned in favor of ayatollahs writing traffic tickets. The ignorance is both ridiculous and totally predictable.

I'm mostly concerned about the violent elements contained in it: public floggings and so on, and by the fact that women are the most likely targets. Moreover, sharia law impinges on women's rights A Lot more than the typical muslim practitioner would.
And concerns were raised about such a law from within some muslim communities too.
(As I understand it.)

If you allow even a more cosmeticized version of it, are you encouraging or discouraging underground extreme practices? Because the sharia law in it's" pure form" (so to speak) encourages flogging, public stoning and so on.

 

[oggbashan]

A bit of a tangent, but I wonder what the limits of that is.

Can two gentmemen mutually agree to settle a dispute in fisticuffs?

They can but either can then claim assault.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm mostly concerned about the violent elements contained in it: public floggings and so on, and by the fact that women are the most likely targets. Moreover, sharia law impinges on women's rights A Lot more than the typical muslim practitioner would.
And concerns were raised about such a law from within some muslim communities too.
(As I understand it.)

If you allow even a more cosmeticized version of it, are you encouraging or discouraging underground extreme practices? Because the sharia law in it's" pure form" (so to speak) encourages flogging, public stoning and so on.

As I said above, it depends on the definition of Sharia. What people are afraid of is the medieval version including the flogging and stoning e.g. in parts of rural Pakistan, and in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

What most Muslims understand by Sharia is NOT that.

The real problem is that some communities in Western countries, not just Muslim communities but Hindu and even Christian, do not realise that the country's laws apply to all of them, especially the laws that protect women and children. It is a CULTURAL problem, not really a religious problem.

The complaint by the Iranian and Kurdish women's organisation could be echoed by women from other countries' heritage. In the UK, women's rights were very limited less than 100 years ago, and for some situations less than 50 years ago. Historically it is fairly new to see women as having equal rights under the law, even in Western democracies.

Just look at some of the stories on Literotica, particularly in Loving Wives. The idea that women are inferior is rife even here.

 

[Aella_]

The complaint by the Iranian and Kurdish women's organisation could be echoed by women from other countries' heritage. In the UK, women's rights were very limited less than 100 years ago, and for some situations less than 50 years ago. Historically it is fairly new to see women as having equal rights under the law, even in Western democracies.

Just look at some of the stories on Literotica, particularly in Loving Wives. The idea that women are inferior is rife even here.

Yes, but we're talking about whether sharia should play a role -even a minor one- in the judicial system of a european country - and much less about personal attitudes, or about the past. (I don't think the point here is whether christians or hindus are more or less misogynistic than muslims. Or about what happened 50 years ago.)

1.Is sharia law taking away NOW any of the rights that the official European law is granting women?
First of all: how can one even argue that Sharia law (the way it's still practiced in the 21st century) is acceptable - when they're still flogging women or stoning them to death over "sexual crimes" in certain arab countries? And when even a few members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have decided that sharia should play no role in their judicial system?
As to the Eu - even if it's somehow "cosmeticized" or they put safeguards in place, I still believe that it's taking away some of women's rights.

2.Should sharia law play a role -even a minor one- in the judicial system of a european country-
RachelX is right imo:

Germany love to seem open, accepting and friendly these days in what I suspect is an attempt to shrug off old stereotypes. It'll end up backfiring on them though as plenty of people will take advantage of that.

It shouldn't exist in the UK either.
When you move to a country you should follow their laws, not just make your own up.

we're not arguing about muslim's freedom to practice religion (Islam). Because they have a right to do so, within appropriate limits of course.
But sharia law is a law that could potentially short-circuit the existing law of the adoptive country. And even if they put some safeguards in place - how long until some people will ask for more?
And why this preferential attitude towards one group of immigrants? They should follow the law of the adoptive country, just like everybody else is asked to. Period.

 

[oggbashan]

Yes, but we're talking about kindof semi-official rulings (sharia) and much less about personal attitudes, or about the past.
- I don't think the point here is whether christians or hindus are more or less misogynistic than muslims. Or about what happened 50 years ago.

1.The point here is : is sharia law taking away NOW any of the rights that the official European law is granting women?
I definitely think so. How can one even argue that it's not - when they're still flogging women or stoning them to death over "sexual crimes" in certain arab countries?
And even if it's "cosmeticized" in Germany and UK -for now- it's setting a precedent.

2.The second issue is - RachelX is right imo:



we're not arguing about muslim's freedom to practice religion (Islam). Because they have a right to do so.
But sharia law is a law that could potentially short-circuit the existing law of the adoptive country. And even if they put some safeguards in place - how long until some people will ask for more?
And why this preferential attitude towards one group of immigrants? They should follow the law of the adoptive country, just like everybody else is asked to. Period.

1. Sharia in the UK is NOT taking away any rights that women have in the UK. It can't. It does NOT override national and European laws. All people resident or visiting the UK have to abide by our laws - unless they have diplomatic immunity. (We'd like US diplomats to pay their parking fines - they don't. )

2. It isn't preferential. There are other religious groups including Christians who can use religious bodies for CONCILIATION, which is all Sharia can do. Muslims are expected to abide by the laws of the UK and Europe just like anyone else.

BUT what extremist Muslims and Daesh want is full Sharia throughout Europe and the world. So what? They're not going to get it, just as some extremist organisations in the US or the UK aren't going to make non-white citizens second class people with no vote. Unless Daesh conquer Europe they have no power to introduce Sharia. Those few Muslim idiots who tried to start a Sharia zone in a small part of London were arrested and warned by the Police and read the riot act by their local mosque. Their action angered Muslims more than anyone. Most locals just ignored, or tore down the hand made signs.

But what can happen is that communities conspire to deny the rights that women have in the UK, pressurising them to accept traditions that are illegal. Slowly, too slowly, attitudes are changing but women are still at risk of honour killings and women and children at risk of FGM. The people who commit or support those crimes are now being prosecuted for assault and child abuse, but too few women are willing to testify against their relations.

The authorities are not doing enough but some communities still cover up the crimes and protect the criminals. But that is NOT Sharia. Those crimes are traditional customs that are illegal.

I have tried to make you appreciate the difference between the brutal Sharia that Daesh want (but don't actually abide by themselves) and the tiny impact of a form of Sharia to help Muslims living in the UK adapt their religious tenets to the practicalities of living in the UK. That tiny impact of religious convenience is similar to those operated by Orthodox Jews in part of London; by Quakers; by some evangelical Christians; by Sikhs (male Sikhs are supposed to carry a dagger - school children are allowed to carry a plastic miniature approved by their religious leaders) and so on. That version of Sharia is NO threat to anyone. The customs of grandparents and parents of Muslims (and others) living in the UK can be a threat to women and children - but is NOT Sharia.

 

[Aella_]

Hi Ogg, I'm starting to feel a bit overwhelmed here.
I definitely disagree with your viewpoint, but I don't have your knowledge or background to be on a par in this debate and to support my "cause".
But it's a topic that interests me. A lot, since it's so close to home.

Would it be possible for you or whoever else agrees to it, to take this debate over to the GB, and to discuss it with people who are on "the other team", yet have more knowledge in such matters? Like Ishmail or AJ or RachelX ?

Thanks.

 

[oggbashan]

Sharia and Sharia

After Aella's last post above I think I need to say it AGAIN.

What Daesh (and some other Muslim fanatics want) is the medieval version of Sharia, like going back to the laws enacted by William the Conqueror in the UK which were superseded by Magna Carta.

The Sharia that can be used in the UK and other parts of Europe is NOTHING LIKE DAESH'S VERSION.

Many of the refugees entering Europe are fleeing Daesh's Sharia. They don't want it. They want themselves and their families as far away from Daesh's Sharia as possible.

What is being discussed is just scaremongering and reproducing Daesh's propaganda that they will bring their version of Sharia to Europe. It is absolute bullshit.