On Mon, 14 May 2018 17:54:18 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:03:58 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 08:00:42 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor Post by Josh Rosenbluth Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On the one hand, you have stated that we should not
discriminate against Muslims except to limit Muslim
immigration. In particular, we should only require that all
people in the USA must obey our laws.
On the other hand, you have rejected the idea that we should
treat Islamic law and courts (as practiced in the USA) on an
equal basis with their Canon and Talmudic counterparts (as
practiced in the USA), even though such an equal treatment
entails nothing more than all three of them obeying our laws
(something you said you support).
These two positions strike me as logically inconsistent. In
particular, the latter position looks very much like
discrimination against Muslims already in the USA. How do
you explain holding these inconsistent positions?
No further comment, Jeff?
Sorry, I missed your reply.
I am out of my depth on this one since I know nothing about
accomodations to Talmudic and Canon law. But, let's say that
Sharia courts are accepted in the United States and become
commonplace -- could those courts compel Muslim women to wear
veils? Order hands of criminals to be amputated? Declare the
death penalty for abandoniong the Muslim religion? Order the call
to prayer to be broadcast over loud speakers in a fashion
contrary to existing laws concerning the use of loud speakers?
Order the death penalty as punishment for the commission of
adultery? Declare the testimony of two women to be equivalent to
that of one man? Order non-muslims in a political jurisdiction to
pay a Dhimmi tax? Permit husbands to divorce wives by repeating
the words "I divorce thee" three times in front of a Sharia
judge? Permit marriage to females 9 years of age? Require the
testimony of 4 male witnesses to prove the rape of a woman?
The answer to all your questions is "no" because such courts, just
like their Canon and Talmudic counterparts, must obey secular law.
But plenty of things that Sharia courts could do, just like their
Canon and Talmudic counterparts, would comply with secular law.
One such example is a Sharia court applying Islamic law to conclude
that sons receive more in a will than daughters do (that's a
perfectly legal arrangement in any will and Orthodox Jews might do
the same thing). In those cases, are you OK with all three
religious courts having the force of law?
You are being very naieve. Muslims recognize only Allah's law, and
obey Infidel law, only if theyare forced to. Will there be a secular
judge observing Sharia court proceedings to insure that Sharia
judges toe the line? No, of course not. Sharia without oversight
depends on the victim going to the civil authorities. Few are willing
to do that. Sharia courts use social and family pressure to enforce
their decrees, legal and otherwise.
So, is it your position that Sharia courts should not be treated on an
equal basis as their Canon and Talmudic counterparts because only Sharia
courts cannot be trusted to obey our laws?
It is my position that a place to start is with very few Muslim
immigrants, which should result in few Sharia courts, or councils as
they prefer to be called.
Two years ago, in response to readily apparent problems with UK Sharia
councils, a government commission was established to perform an
"independent review into the application of sharia law in England and
Wales". The commission issued its findings in February of this year,
enumerating numerous problems ...
"The independent review into the application of sharia law in England
Presented to Parliament
by the Secretary of State for the Home Department
by Command of Her Majesty
"Evidence of bad practice:
Bad practice in the sharia councils may be down to individual bad
practice or underlying
problems in structure or both in some cases.
inappropriate and unnecessary questioning in regards to personal
a forced marriage victim was asked to attend the sharia council at
the same time as her family
insistence on any form of mediation as a necessary preliminary
women being invited to make concessions to their husbands in order
to secure a divorce (men are never asked to make these concessions).
For example in khula agreements, husbands may demand excessive
financial concessions from the wife
lengthy process so that while divorces are very rarely refused they
can be drawn out
inconsistency across council decisions and processes
no safeguarding policies and/or the recognition for the need of
no clear signposting to the legal options available for civil
even with a decree absolute a religious divorce is not always a
straightforward process and the council will consider all the evidence
adopting civil legal terms inappropriately, leading to confusion for
applicants over the legality of council decisions
very few women as panel members
panel members sitting on sharia councils who have only recently
moved to the UK, and who do not have the required language skills
and/or wider understanding of UK society
varying and conflicting interpretations of Islamic law which may
lead to inconsistencies"
I suggest you read the report in full for yourself. The commission
found that most cases before the councils involved women seeking a
divorce. In Islam, divorce on the part of the woman is a complicated
drawn out procedure. Husbands, on the other hand simply say "I divorce
you" three times and it is done.
The commission recommended legislation, regulation of the councils,
and a requirement that civil marriage accompany Sharia marriage -- the
purpose being to insure that both partners, particularly the women,
receive the benefit of the laws of the UK.
I believe something similar should be carefully considered here.
Include Talmudic and Canon law courts, and any other quasi legal
religious legal system, too -- fine with me. But best to just leave
these problems to fester in the 50 countries already seized by Islam.