Gordon Brown's new minister for race relations has attacked sharia courts, insisting that the Muslim community in Britain is not “advanced” enough to have its own legal system.
Sadiq Khan, whose comments will have added impact because he is a Muslim himself, has also warned that the growing number of tribunals based on Islamic codes could entrench discrimination against women.
Khan, who became minister for community cohesion in the government reshuffle this month, said: “The burden is on those who want to open up these courts to persuade us why they should do it.”
His comments contrast with those of figures such as Lord Phillips, the lord chief justice, who said in July that Islamic law could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said the establishment of sharia courts in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
In a wide-ranging interview on race and immigration, Khan, 38, the Labour MP for Tooting, south London, also: Warned that an economic downturn could fuel ethnic tensions. Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families. Admitted that government anti-terror laws had caused “problems” in race relations. Called on public bodies to cut translation services to encourage immigrants to learn English.
Khan’s outspoken remarks on sharia courts are likely to cause the most controversy.
The Sunday Times last month revealed that the government had quietly sanctioned a network of sharia judges, empowering them to issue legally binding rulings on disputes including finance, divorce, inheritance and domestic violence.
Supporters of sharia courts point to the “beth din” courts long used by the Jewish community to resolve family disputes. However, Khan said sharia courts could not be compared with the beth din.
“I have seen good examples of Jewish courts,” he said. “I would be very concerned about sharia courts applying in the UK. I don’t think there is that level of sophistication that there is in Jewish law.
“Jewish law has a long history. There are not the same areas of concern that there are with sharia law. At some stage in the future I do not rule out the possibility that the Muslim diaspora in this country may be advanced enough. But now is not the right time.”
Khan said he was aware such blunt criticism of his own community would lead to controversy, but he insisted: “Mass migration [among Asian Muslims] started 30 years ago. Jewish migration started 500 years ago.
“It sends the wrong message at a time when I am trying to say to all citizens, ‘learn English, get involved in your community’.
“You should practise your faith, eat halal food, fast, have planning permission for a mosque, be buried in the Islamic way, you can have your son circumcised. What is the purpose – what is the loophole that sharia courts are closing?”
Khan said he believed the tribunals would only exacerbate the unfair treatment of Muslim women.
“There is unequal bargaining power between men and women in this country,” he said. “Women can be abused and persuaded to do things that they shouldn’t have to do.”
Until now, Khan, formerly a human rights lawyer, has perhaps been best known as the MP who was bugged by the police when he visited a constituent in prison.
He told how the incident, first reported by The Sunday Times in February, led to arguments with Muslim friends. “People said: ‘You have been lecturing us and even you are being bugged. What chance have we got?’”
I'd agree with him, with the exception of saying that the Bethdin courts were superior. The Bethdin courts are also not needed or wanted or democratic.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Since this country is not an Islamic state, we shouldn't (and cannot) have sharia law in the UK (unless of course it's the existing stuff, which everyone is fine with anywho cus it's stuff like nikah etc - no actual laws). First and foremost, we have to get practicing Islam properly. If we can't even do that, then there is little point in sharia law in the UK - we must lead by example, then others will follow.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
It's the existing stuff that we're on about here, and everyone is definitely not fine with it.
....
Oh, I thought they were referring to adding more sharia laws into the UK. Hmm, I'll have to let this one unfold a bit more before I can make any more comments.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Yup, but i dont agree with it applying to the case of Sharia.
Settling dispuits through Marriage counsellers or soliciters or a discussion group isnt the same as settling dispuits according to the immutable word of the creator of the universe and all universes not yet known
Marriage counsellers can discuss and debate things, they allow for progress (change).
Sharia cant be discussed or debated or progress.
It also represents in my veiw a return to the morals of the ancients, always a bad thing.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
It will be met with litany, but eventually it will settle. I believe that as per prophecy
"You will invade the Arabian Peninsula and God will grant it. Then Persia and God will grant it. Then you shall invade Ar-Rum (Europe) and God will grant it. Then you shall attack the Antichrist and God shall give him to you"The Messenger of God was then asked "which of the two cities will be conquered first - Constantinople or Rome?" and the Holy Prophet PBUH replied : " The city of Heraclius (Constantinople) will be conquered FIRST"
so I think this is actually a auspicate of Muslim rule even if it starts small..
If there will be 'injustice' toward women, I assume it is because someone didn't study jurisprudence properly or are themselves wicked and wish to deny women their due rights not that it is anything with sharia law itself. I reckon someone like Britteny spears whose paying thousands to he rx- husband in alimony would be thrilled with sharia law, which would not only guarantee he can't touch her money but forces him to pay alimony even if he makes the smaller income ..
the west is the last to talk of injustice, aside from that, they really should concentrate on their own affairs with their moral degeneracy and economic collapse..
I am not sure why everything is met with so much resistance, you'd think they were living in some sort of utopia to shake their disapproving fingers.. I disagree that we have to wait for the rise of the Muslim empire.. I believe to get there we must take small steps, and this is a good small step!
Last edited by جوري; 10-12-2008 at 08:37 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Yup, but i dont agree with it applying to the case of Sharia.
Settling dispuits through Marriage counsellers or soliciters or a discussion group isnt the same as settling dispuits according to the immutable word of the creator of the universe and all universes not yet known
Marriage counsellers can discuss and debate things, they allow for progress (change).
Sharia cant be discussed or debated or progress.
It also represents in my veiw a return to the morals of the ancients, always a bad thing.
Sure, but why should any of that matter if both parties agree to using Sharia as a mediator? Shouldn't they be free to make that choice?
Regards
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Then they should fill their boots, if you acknowlage the expression. But the decison should not be recognised in English Law. It should hold the same weight as two neighbours who have a chat over a cup of tea with a mutual freind and their freind decideds what they should do.
I dont want to start waxing large about womens rights and injustices because I'm certain I can use all that blather for another thread. Simply put, special interest groups should have no say in actual enforcable law. Otherwise My religion says I can rob banks with Impunity and i'm going to be tried by the high preist. The high preist is my Dad and the jury is my pet dog. Dont diss it. Its my religion.
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Then they should fill their boots, if you acknowlage the expression. But the decison should not be recognised in English Law. It should hold the same weight as two neighbours who have a chat over a cup of tea with a mutual freind and their freind decideds what they should do.
I dont want to start waxing large about womens rights and injustices because I'm certain I can use all that blather for another thread. Simply put, special interest groups should have no say in actual enforcable law. Otherwise My religion says I can rob banks with Impunity and i'm going to be tried by the high preist. The high preist is my Dad and the jury is my pet dog. Dont diss it. Its my religion.
No one of us thought so far that choosing that muslim as MP was a great trick made by the labour. The muslim MP seems to be completely assimilated, more brittish than native Brittons. But as a muslim it is easier for him to say such things about sharia law which was expected from the Goverment.
Sometimes we forget that people who built such great country like England cant be stupid. Moreover, they are very clever men(except some leftist radicals) and this may be one of these examples.
This country is dying because of a lack of men, not a lack of programs.
Shouldn't you use examples from actual religious laws before coming up with your usual inventive scenarios?
The law you so enjoy was written by a bunch of white fogies in funny wigs and pantyhose and that for some inexplicable reason is better than divine law? and we have all seen just how wonderful it is indeed!
Only two religions have jurisprudence as part of creed -- Jesus didn't hang around long enough to let you how to run a country politically or in a judicial manner..
Islam did, and worked rather well for centuries and insha'Allah it will be implemented again!
If civil suits don't concern you, on the account you are not Muslim, I am not sure why it is so upsetting?
England has imposed its stupidity and imperialism on the world long enough, it is about time they gave something back.. it would also be nice if they could just shut up about it.
Talk about a worthless little island I'd love to flick off with my index finger-- or the finger next to it!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
[QUOTE=Skye Ephémérine;1024857]Shouldn't you use examples from actual religious laws before coming up with your usual inventive scenarios?
The law you so enjoy was written by a bunch of white fogies in funny wigs and pantyhose and that for some inexplicable reason is better than divine law? and we have all seen just how wonderful it is indeed![QUOTE]
Actually, If British Law is anything like American law it may have origionated with 18th century enlightenment thinkers, but it's present state is the result of years and years of popular debate, discourse, and collective decision makeing that has fashioned a government more or less in line with the will of the sovreign popular.
You may consider "divine law" better than law from the democratic process, however the latter enjoys a universal accesability that the former does not and is ammendable to the will of the people.
Only two religions have jurisprudence as part of creed -- Jesus didn't hang around long enough to let you how to run a country politically or in a judicial manner..
Islam did, and worked rather well for centuries and insha'Allah it will be implemented again!
Well, if I had to choose between Bush and Mohammad for President I would, without the slightest hesitation, pick Mohammad however you need to be specific which variant of Islamic law you feel worked so well. Islamic law certianly is interesting and very advanced for it's time however I am willing to be any school you pick would have certain components that modern secular people would not like.
If civil suits don't concern you, on the account you are not Muslim, I am not sure why it is so upsetting?
Perhapse he feels uncomftorable with multiple court systems geared to specific religious groups that may further isolate and alienate the British Muslim population from the rest of the country (no idea if that;'s true, just a hunch)
England has imposed its stupidity and imperialism on the world long enough
England has also exported quite a bit of brilliance over the past few centuries. You have them to thank for the computer you are typing on. Particularly an English gay man who ended up killing himself with a poison apple after being forced into hormone treatments via Englands religiously motivated anti-gay laws.
it is about time they gave something back.. it would also be nice if they could just shut up about it.
They have every right to debate their country's court systems.
Talk about a worthless little island I'd love to flick off with my index finger-- or the finger next to it!
Actually, If British Law is anything like American law it may have origionated with 18th century enlightenment thinkers, but it's present state is the result of years and years of popular debate, discourse, and collective decision makeing that has fashioned a government more or less in line with the will of the sovreign popular.
Ok!
You may consider "divine law" better than law from the democratic process, however the latter enjoys a universal accesability that the former does not and is ammendable to the will of the people.
Question is what do you know of Shari3a law to speak with such convictions whether or not it is democratic? In fact it is based on a Shura system of consensus. Women were 'voting' so to speak under Islamic law, whereas not fifty years ago under western law, they were asked to move to the back of a bus for a white man and a few decades earlier than that fighting for their rights to vote.. Question of civility and enlightenment is relative at best when it comes to the west!
Well, if I had to choose between Bush and Mohammad for President I would, without the slightest hesitation, pick Mohammad however you need to be specific which variant of Islamic law you feel worked so well. Islamic law certianly is interesting and very advanced for it's time however I am willing to be any school you pick would have certain components that modern secular people would not like.
What do you know of Islamic law? little snippets from the media or you have studied it? it takes a good 7-11 years to know Islamic jurisprudence. I am all for bringing the Muslim empire as it once was, whilst Europe in its Darkest ages, Islam the pinnacle of enlightenment!
Perhapse he feels uncomftorable with multiple court systems geared to specific religious groups that may further isolate and alienate the British Muslim population from the rest of the country (no idea if that;'s true, just a hunch)
Civil cases are alienating regardless of whether you are implementing 18th century french constitution or some 20th century amendment. I for instance find an American system of bucolic jurors from the streets hilarious, and wouldn't want to partake whether a defendant, plaintiff or plain spectator.. yet here it is the dumb law that governs the land, where an undereducated non-english speaking woman can sue the city for $75,000,000 of mine and other hard working people's tax money, because she fell on the street and needs someone accountable and paying for her free loading ways!
England has also exported quite a bit of brilliance over the past few centuries. You have them to thank for the computer you are typing on. Particularly an English gay man who ended up killing himself with a poison apple after being forced into hormone treatments via Englands religiously motivated anti-gay laws.
I didn't know the bible asked gay men to undergo hormone treatment.. but glad you acknowledge that up to the seventies the 'civilized' west still considered homosexuality an act of sexual deviation, although a digression from our thread. Most of the things I use are Japanese.. and if the world has seen the mountain it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants. I thank England for nothing!
They have every right to debate their country's court systems.
And I have every right to debate my opinion, considering those who want to live under sharia law are also Citizens of that 'democratic country' and democracy by definition entails that supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them, to govern by what desire to be governed with.. if this doesn't concern you, then I don't see why get so riled up about it!
How lovely.
indeed
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
We have had this dual secular-sharia system in India for over 6 decades with absolutely no dispute whatsoever. All our sharia laws related to inheritance, divorce, marriage, etc, for Muslims only.
The guys argument that the community isn't ready for it, whether right or wrong, is not what I have an issue with.
My problem is that he thinks Islamic courts will discriminate against women. I really hope he doesn't mean what I think he means because that comes dangerously close to words of kufr!
My problem is that he thinks Islamic courts will discriminate against women. I really hope he doesn't mean what I think he means because that comes dangerously close to words of kufr!
I thought that he was saying that at first, but on closer inspection, I think what he means is that people might force the women to 'agree' to using the Sharia courts, so it wouldn't really be her 'free choice'. Get me? I don't think he was saying that Sharia is discriminatory in and of itself.
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
aamirsaab,
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks