Happy Atheist Forum

Probably not, however, adopting some aspects of Sharia law pertaining to things like family and marriage disputes is being proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams (holds the highest position in the Church of England). Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm). Quite a heated debate, has there been any coverage of this in the US media?

I've heard about it, but I think it was from a post on Hal/Mike's forum ATT.  I get all my news from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert...I'm surprised one of them hasn't picked that up yet, it would be very easy to make fun of.

It wouldn't surprise me if it did happen. PM Gordon Brown and the Archbishop of Canterbury seem to have been politically fornicating with one another more than usual recently. In spite of that though, I think most of the controversy around this issue is simply over the negative connotations of the word 'Sharia' as a primary (or only) legal system in certain islamic states. I don't think it's as big a deal as people are making out. Williams is only talking about reviewing certain aspects of it to help gain inspiration on how we're going to handle fair treatment of the increasing Muslim population. He's not saying that we should take sharia, in it's entirety, and us it to replace any current system. He's simply proposing a small flexibility of choice based on religion in a number of minor legal issues (example he gives there is marriage), not that we should start stoning people to death for not wearing head garments and so on. Since he's not talking about any major change to how our legal system works, and the hypothetical 'sharia court' would still be under the same legal system, just run and decorated slightly differently to account for different legal customs and traditions, it doesn't really bother me. I think to a certain extent he may be right.

I have heard of this. It doesn't get extensive coverage in the US because it's a non issue.

The UK headed down that path with Jewish Beth Din courts some time ago.

My thinking goes along the lines, if you did it for the Jews, you have to do it for the Muslims as well. And the Catholics, and the Wiccans, and the Satanists, and the, well, you get the point.

Since it's civil cases that these courts decide, I guess it's not TOO big a deal, but I certainly would fight that sort of system here in the US.

If I got into a contract dispute with a Muslim, could he drag me into a Sharia civil court? What rights would I have as a kafir? Would the same rules of evidence and witnesses apply?

I'm not saying that an immigrant must completely assimilate into a new country, eschewing all cultural identity, but part of the deal with citizenship comes the implication that you play by your new country's rules.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

As an Iranian growing up in the midst of Islam I can tell you with all the confidence IF this Sharia law ever come to be accepted  fully or partially in any European country the end of humanity as we know it; will come soon after. The main goal of Islam is to integrate itself into the western society and this will be seen as the miracle of Allah that only Allah has the power to do such miracle.

Not long after; you can kiss your ass goodbye, if is Atheist, Christians, Jews or anything but Muslims.

The world was warned about Nazism and it didn't listen, this is another warning that will be not Heard.

Quote from: "MikeyV"My thinking goes along the lines, if you did it for the Jews, you have to do it for the Muslims as well. And the Catholics, and the Wiccans, and the Satanists, and the, well, you get the point.

Ahh, a slippery slope? I very much doubt it'll ever go that far to be honest, primariy because wiccans, Satanists and so on are too small a group to influence politics (and wiccans and Satanists aren't interested in the intricacies of law anyway). It's only because the number of Muslims in the UK is so high, and they have a few different opinions on some small matters, that this is being considered at all. Also, the current legal system in the UK was built on Christian principals in the first place so I doubt we'll have much of a problem from that side.

I think that people are jumping to very far-fetched (and slightly Fox-News-esque) conclusions here.

Quote from: "fillip3rd"As an Iranian growing up in the midst of Islam I can tell you with all the confidence IF this Sharia law ever come to be accepted fully or partially in any European country the end of humanity as we know it; will come soon after. The main goal of Islam is to integrate itself into the western society and this will be seen as the miracle of Allah that only Allah has the power to do such miracle.

You talk about Islam as a collective entity bent on our destruction when the reality is that most Muslim immigrants in the UK are here to escape the problems in the east and to improve the standards of living for them and their families, not to fulfil some evil collective scheme. This is a democracy and many British citizens are Muslim. It's only since Bush declared 'war on terror' and our incompetent leaders in the labour government decided to partner up with him on his self-defeating, oil-grabbing adventures that the UK has become a real target to extremists not to mention one of the two most hated nations in the world.

Also, as I pointed out before, the sharia system is not going to be fully, or even partially integrated to a point where it will actually make any significant differences. Ever. The labour government is stupid, greedy & inherently corrupt but they're not criminally insane. Also, if that were the message that the Archbishop was trying to put forth (and not simply a common misinterpretation) then believe me, he'd have been lynched by an angry student mob already. Or, failing that, his own congregation who, you have to remember, are strong Christians, not Muslims. What Williams is saying is more based around insignificant traditional aspects, more than anything, along with some minor things which cater to Muslim, rather than Christian, belief (ie. the little technicalities of divorce and so on). And this is a matter of choice not compulsion. It doesn't mean that atheists, Christians and what have you are going to be subject to any of it.

I'm still slightly wary, though, of course, but mainly because of this issue:

Quote from: "MikeyV"If I got into a contract dispute with a Muslim, could he drag me into a Sharia civil court?

This is a good point and I'm not sure what the technicalities would be surrounding this. I very much doubt (and this is hypothetically assuming that this ever does happen) that any sharia system would take priority over another (or even be present) in issues that aren't affected by religion. ie. if a Muslim took you to court for vandalising his front door then it'd still be in a regular court room and his religion would hold no relevance to the way justice is served. That's the case with the 'Beth Din system', at least. On the other hand I've no idea how it would work if, say, a Christian married a Muslim (can happen) and then they wanted a divorce... and I'm not sure how that works in Beth Din either. Worth pondering, certainly.

QuoteThe world was warned about Nazism and it didn't listen, this is another warning that will be not Heard.

Oh I think many people in the EU are quite well aware of the extremist threat   and that is one reason why they are approaching the issue of Turkey with such trepidation.

QuoteOh I think many people in the EU are quite well aware of the extremist threat and that is one reason why they are approaching the issue of Turkey with such trepidation.

I think the main source of ambivilence towards Turkey is to do with immigration and economic factors, Turkey is a secular country, I don't live in Europe though so my knowledge on this subject isn't extensive.

To understand Islam one must study their roots. Unlike the mythical Jesus, Muhammad was a real soldier. He did not conquered land with love and Allah teaching but with the sword. At first he killed all the soldiers and by entering the city he gave the people two choice convert to Islam and be equal or not and be the lesser citizen. This ideology exists until today.  While you can live as none believer in an Islamic country you have merely no rights. This is clearly indicated in the Quran.  There is thin line between being tolerance and naïve. While tolerance will allow a peaceful community being Naïve may cost too dearly. English people at first tried to conquer the world with sword and they did.

Now they are acting as the moral teachers of the world just like their Christian crusader believing that the world need Jesus to be saved bit this time if they are going to implement sharia law in any form I can clearly see their down fall. Maybe this for seen by Nostradamus. Maybe is time for the English hypocrites to be fallen.

In regard of Jewish laws, well let me tell you this Jews have shown less aggressive than Muslim. If you let the bee they let you be but you cannot say that about Muslim.
I am not spreading hate I Am telling as is since I lived amongst them and still have few around me and I know how they think.
Don’t be naïve !!!

Islamic groups have been petitioning for Sharia law to be respected in Canada too.

This is one time I can actually see xenophobia coming in handy.

filip3rd, I'm going to assume that that post was directed towards me, since I think I'm the only one who's raised points to contradict any of this.

Quote from: "fillip3rd"To understand Islam one must study their roots. Unlike the mythical Jesus, Muhammad was a real soldier. He did not conquered land with love and Allah teaching but with the sword. At first he killed all the soldiers and by entering the city he gave the people two choice convert to Islam and be equal or not and be the lesser citizen. This ideology exists until today.

Yes, that is what I was referring to when I said 'extremists'. You seem to assume that I have no experience of Muslims within the UK and am oblivious to 'how they think', as you put it, when in fact I know quite a few. I'm friends with quite a few, a couple of them since we were very young children. I'm not being naive when I say assuredly that the vast majority of muslims in Britain are not hoping to bring down the government any time soon, nor are they preoccupied with shoving their beliefs down other people's throats. Ergo, I don't see how treating them as equal citizens within a democratic state is crossing any line between being tolerant and being naive.

Quote from: "filip3rd"English people at first tried to conquer the world with sword and they did.

Now they are acting as the moral teachers of the world just like their Christian crusader believing that the world need Jesus to be saved bit this time if they are going to implement sharia law in any form I can clearly see their down fall. Maybe this for seen by Nostradamus. Maybe is time for the English hypocrites to be fallen.

Ok, first of all, as I've already explained two times, you are misinterpreting what Dr. Williams proposed and jumping to extremely far-fetched conclusions. I'm not going to repeat my explanation of this because it's already up there for you to read.

Second of all, I'm not sure I follow you're 'English hypocrites' point. It seems very confused. I get the impression that what you're trying to say is "the English went on crusades, now they're being all over-the-top with their tolerance and inclusiveness. Therefore they are hypocrites." I'm inferring some kind of loose comparison between "England's" attempts to be inclusive and their past crusades as being both similar ("Now they are acting as the moral teachers of the world just like their Christian crusader") and different (you call it hypocritical). Couple of points you may want to examine:

In response to your stating that we're acting as the 'moral teachers of the world' and that this is similar to the crusades: I agree with the 'moral teacher' thing to an extent. However in clearly different contexts. I'm thinking more along the lines of bullshit excuses for the Iraq war ("We're freeing the Iraqis! Honest! That's why we're there! Oh no, wait, we've completely fucked everything up...") and other such examples. However, I don't see how trying to be inclusive to our own citizens, excessively or otherwise, can be interpreted as imposing our beliefs on the rest of the world. Also, to compare this to the crusades whether favourably or unfavourably is completely obscure and ridiculous.

In response to your stating that we're hypocrites: "England" is nothing but a geographical land mass, not an immortal collective consciousness. It isn't hypocritical for an Englishman today to disagree with the principles of other Englishmen almost a thousand years ago. Would you prefer it if we still had religious crusades? Would that be less hypocritical? To put it in your own words, don't be so naive.

Last point (only a very minor one): careful not confuse 'The UK' with 'England', or to use them as two different names for the same thing because they are different. It doesn't bother me particularly but it can annoy non-English UKians a fair bit when people act like they don't exist.  Remember we're talking about UK law, here, not English law. In fact if you consider that there isn't an English parliament and what laws we have are governed and determined by all of the separate 'Kingdoms' together, then 'English law' doesn't even exist.

Quote from: "filip3rd"In regard of Jewish laws, well let me tell you this Jews have shown less aggressive than Muslim. If you let the bee they let you be but you cannot say that about Muslim.
I am not spreading hate I Am telling as is since I lived amongst them and still have few around me and I know how they think.

Again, you missed the point of my previous post. Re-read this bit:

Quote from: "I"Also, as I pointed out before, the sharia system is not going to be fully, or even partially integrated to a point where it will actually make any significant differences. Ever. The labour government is stupid, greedy & inherently corrupt but they're not criminally insane. Also, if that were the message that the Archbishop was trying to put forth (and not simply a common misinterpretation) then believe me, he'd have been lynched by an angry student mob already. Or, failing that, his own congregation who, you have to remember, are strong Christians, not Muslims. What Williams is saying is more based around insignificant traditional aspects, more than anything, along with some minor things which cater to Muslim, rather than Christian, belief (ie. the little technicalities of divorce and so on). And this is a matter of choice not compulsion. It doesn't mean that atheists, Christians and what have you are going to be subject to any of it.

To make the leap from this simple reality to "Complete Muslim take over is just around the corner! We're doomed!" is Earth-shatteringly irrational, if you ask me, particularly considering your inability to demonstrate the logical steps you've taken to get from one point to the other. No one need be concerned that Muslims are taking over the country. It isn't even the Muslims themselves who are pushing for this, mainly.

Now, all that said and done, I am slightly sceptical of this business (for different, considerably more down to Earth reasons). I don't see the necessity for it. As I said before, it isn't Muslims, primarily, who are pushing for this so, if they're happy, why bother changing anything? It's not the first issue I've had this problem with (another example is not letting people fly the English flag in case it offends foreigners, who apparently don't expect to see signs of English culture when visiting/moving to England). I can't help suspecting that it's another product of predominantly white MPs and other public figures who love hammering forth the Politically Correct message. They think it'll win them the favour of the masses, all trying to out-do each other, and now the whole thing has gone completely up its own arse. Also, I think it could partly be because Muslim immigration is providing a cheap work force which the Government wants to exploit and make room for... though I'm sceptical of that too because it sounds a bit too resourceful for New Labour, who generally just faff around trying to suck up to the public with incoherent waffle about healthy eating and so on like a dog trying to impress its owner with a particularly pitiful selection of twigs. They're not the smartest of world leaders, that's for sure.

Mister Joy   At this point all I can say is that real Muslim is first a Muslim then a citizen of UK. Islam is not an ideology where you prove some laws are outdated and they just change and accept the new law and the better idea. It is a way of life, for a Muslim is the only way life.

Let me tell you this about history, during 1979 when the revolution happened in Iran many Iranian that considered them self liberal and none Muslim, they use to drink, eat pork and everything what a Muslim should not do they did, however when revolution happened they turned 180 degree they became devoted Shia Muslim extremist.

Don't forget this that in Christianity was very common to covert and repent later just to be able to stay alive. Muslims are not like this. Yes your friends are moderate Muslims and you can have a glass of beer with them but when time comes not even you are save.

Quran clearly say that you can lie if is in the benefit of Allah. You can act as you are a moderate but when times come you shall die for Allah.

Quote from Quran "When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible"

So please don't show me few good apple and tell me the rest of the basket is good because is not.

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"Islamic groups have been petitioning for Sharia law to be respected in Canada too.

This is one time I can actually see xenophobia coming in handy.

Show me one Islamic country that the laws are equal amongs men and women, none Muslims have rights, juristical laws are fair and human freedom is essential in their constitution.

QuoteShow me one Islamic country that the laws are equal amongs men and women, none Muslims have rights, juristical laws are fair and human freedom is essential in their constitution.

I don't 100% understand this statement.

Let me just clarify my position that I believe that church and state must be kept separate. I am well aware that muslims are people too. But I also think that islam is bullshit, as much as judaism and christianity. None of it has any business in the courts. I live in a secular country (that can always use improving) and it must be kept that way.

QuoteI think the main source of ambivilence towards Turkey is to do with immigration and economic factors, Turkey is a secular country, I don't live in Europe though so my knowledge on this subject isn't extensive.
   

Well, I think that is a smaller part of the equation.  If you look at Turkey and what has been going on, there is a strong movement towards Islamization.  If Turkey were allowed into the EU, then some of  those same Islamists would disperse throughout Europe increasing security concerns for nations like France and Denmark especially.   Economically, the EU needs immigrants just like the US to support the costs of gentrification of the populous.

filip3rd... I find your attitude to be somewhat disturbing, to say the least. What are you proposing, exactly? That Muslims should have no influence in UK politics at all despite having a large population here? Should we take away their right to vote? You criticise them for treating others as 'lesser citizens' in Islamic states yet from what I can infer from your poorly expressed, vague, self-contradicting and difficult to diffuse points, you would have us treat them as lesser citizens.

I'm not showing you 'a few good apples', you are showing me 'a few bad ones'. Relevant to this topic at least. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK are not extremists and even if they do hold their faith above their citizenship so what? Most Christians would say the same. Should we outlaw them too? I hold a lot of things above my British citizenship: my own life, beliefs and family are all included in that. I've really no idea what you're trying to demonstrate here, or elsewhere. I'm not even sure what you're really disagreeing with (though I hope that my impressions are false).

Muslims should obey the law of UK, no more not less. Polygamy should not be accepted in the Muslims community in UK and any none Islamic country. It is widely known that the wife’s of Polygamist Muslims in UK receive government help.

Islam is just like Gun in the right hand pretty save but in the wrong hand dangerous. While Christians have proven to be no less violent in the past, they have grown out of their crusading mentality, Muslims haven't. Give them the same right and judge as equal as an English man and not according to their Allah.

They call it separation of Church and state when you do not obey this simple law you are setting yourself up for failure.

Quote from: "filip3rd"Muslims should obey the law of UK, no more not less. Polygamy should not be accepted in the Muslims community in UK and any none Islamic country. It is widely known that the wife's of Polygamist Muslims in UK receive government help.

I agree that Muslims should obey the law here or leave, however I also have to accept that they do and should have a political voice here as well. I don't question their morality or motives. If I have any queries with anything, my focus is entirely on my own government & representatives - on their incompetence when it comes to handling issues like these - not the Muslim population. Also, what Archbishop Williams is proposing will in no way lead to the end of the Western World, as you predicted earlier. Your branding it with more significance than it's worth. Way more.

The polygamy issue doesn't mar me that much (it is still technically illegal here and it can't really be taken further than it already has done) and only gets under my skin because of the welfare benefits issue (which I believe you mentioned), and that's nothing to do with this topic. I'm not hugely irritated by it, though, because the number of polygamist Muslims in the UK is miniscule & since most of them have jobs, an even smaller number get dole money - if it got to a point where it was costing the government any serious cash you can bet things would change. For the time being though, there are bigger fish to fry.

Quote from: "filip3rd"While Christians have proven to be no less violent in the past, they have grown out of their crusading mentality, Muslims haven't.

Again, you're speaking in a very generalised way and, for the topic at least, it isn't even a generalisation that speaks for the majority. Nowhere near. Plus, there are a whole lot of Christians out there who would happily blow themselves up in a school building if they thought that's what God wanted them to. Give them enough political & financial motivation and they'd find a way to convince themselves that this was God's will.

Quote from: "filip3rd"They call it separation of Church and state when you do not obey this simple law you are setting yourself up for failure.

We need to be absolutely clear on what separation of church and state means, though. It shouldn't be dominated by religious agendas, certainly, but it also shouldn't (and can't, in fact) be separate from the reality that many of its subjects are religious and the state (a morally grounded one, at least) exists to cater to it's subjects. The governing forces themselves should be without religious bias but they still need to represent the religious sub-cultures. Allowing minor alternative legal systems to run along side ours (that are different only in minuscule ways) to account for a religious landscape sits fine with me so long as it isn't at my expense & doesn't effect anyone else outside of those boundaries. Now whether it will or not is questionable to me, as I said before, but even if it does it'll only be trivial issues & won't (can't help feeling a little strange as I say this) mean the end of western civilisation. Though it wont be looking good for Gordon Brown come the next election.

QuoteAgain, you're speaking in a very generalised way and, for the topic at least, it isn't even a generalisation that speaks for the majority. Nowhere near. Plus, there are a whole lot of Christians out there who would happily blow themselves up in a school building if they thought that's what God wanted them to. Give them enough political & financial motivation and they'd find a way to convince themselves that this was God's will.

You make an excellent point. The thing that makes christian/western culture different from many muslim societies is poverty. What makes western culture so much more 'stable' is a strong middle class.  

In muslim theocracies, impoverished and under educated masses are trying to take control of their world in the only way they are able. There are plenty of power hungry people willing to take advantage of this and gain leadership over the angry and powerless.

Egg-bloomin'-zactly.

Also, it ties into the idea of having 'faith above citizenship', which fillip3rd raised earlier. I think everyone holds their moral and philosophical beliefs above their citizenships to whatever nation state they're in, even atheists. If, in order to remain a British citizen, I had to detonate a bomb in a mall (or something) I'd tell the authorities to get stuffed, go warn everyone at said mall and then bugger off to Alaska. It doesn't matter unless citizenship and personal belief (political, moral, religious or otherwise) are in direct conflict; if it becomes an ultimatum then, of course, people are going to go for the latter. With non-extremist Muslims living in the UK their citizenship sits comfortably with Islam in the same way that it does with Christianity, Judaism & atheism. They're no different.