Have all of you been following the fun across the pond over the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments

[funflower]

on how it is "unavoidable" that some aspects of Sharia become part of the UK legal system?

Now (per the Times and Telegraph) even the Queen is worried about how this little flap might "sap the authority of the Church."

If you're having trouble sleeping, try reading the Archibishop's 8-page speech on the topic. A lot of unintelligible blub about how enlightenment values (which were, of course, made possible by Xianity) don't have the right to a "monopoly" on the legal system.

[Warpy]

1. They need to look at some of the parallel systems here

from the Beth Din to the Indian tribal courts on the reservations. Disputes within a certain community can be resolved by the system within that community. Things like murder are exempted and must be handled by the larger legal system and disputes with outsiders are mediated by the larger system.

It's a crazy patchwork over here, but it works.

One of the first people I met here in NM was a remarkable woman who was one of the first lawyers versed in both Pueblo and US law and who handled many of the disputes between the Pueblos and the state.

Beyond a lot of stupid tribal things they do to women, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Shari'a law and its treatment of property and other matters that are disputed. Allowing Muslims who are quarreling over property and marriage issues to choose Shari'a courts shouldn't be that big a problem, even if the decisions don't always make sense to the larger community.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. There's a Beth Din court in Britain already

that does arbitration in divorce, and contract disputes when both parties agree to use it - and some kind of Muslim equivalent already exists too. And the AB of C mentioned the Canadian First Nation system as an example of the kind of thing he's thinking of.

What he actually thinks would be a good idea (or is 'inevitable') was actually rather vague.

[ozone_man]

7. I don't see the connection to first nations in Canada.

In the U.S. and Canada, indigenous people have a degree of autonomy, and for good reason. They were the first inhabitants and have land claims to large regions of both countries. I believe this system is appropriate.

This imposition of Islamic law on the British legal system is quite distinct from that, though I understand why the Archbishop would want to draw the parallel.

I agree with onager, this is a slippery slope that we don't want to go down. Don't compromise an inch of secular law that applies to everyone. No exceptions.

[Deep13]

2. Frankly, I was nonplussed by the Archbishop's statement.

I have a certain affection for the Anglican Church. I was an Episcopalian before I was a skeptic. I was, therefore, shocked to see a complete surrender to fundamentalism.

The state should have a monopoly on law. Even though the U.K. is nominally a Christian nation, my own feeling is that it is more secular in practice than the USA. The reason religious groups are able to push their agenda down our throats is because secular leaders (and now apparently the Church of England) give undeserved respect to religious practices. Frankly, I think the Brits and their government need to push back and reclaim secular rule. People coming to Britain from elsewhere need to understand that the UK is not going to change how they do things for them. I think it is the same here. Religious minorites who abuse women in particular cannot expect that the American justice system will turn a blind eye because of religious tolerance.

I do not think the example of the Indian nations is a good one. Here European Americans intruded on the customs and rights of native people. It was really the very least we could do to allow some autonomy in a few inhospitable corners of this continent. For people coming here, I think most Americans expect that visitors and immigrants will do things our way.

To the extent Sharia law has any virtue, it is because of the common human values shared by everyone and has nothing to do with religion. I suspect the Common Law is at least as good at sorting out property disputes than religious "law." And frankly, I am not willing to minimize the horrible treatment women get at the hands of Sharia authorities. Under UK law, women are citizens. Under Sharia law, they are commodities who only exist vacariously through male relatives.

[onager]

3. As somebody living under sharia law right now...

I don't want one smidgen of that system slithering into Western law.

This is one place where I'll firmly embrace that tricky concept of a "slippery slope." Though in this case, I guess a better analogy would be "the nose of the camel in the tent."

I do have to say that the system of sharia law in Egypt is worlds different from the pure Wahhabi sharia system I saw in Saudi Arabia.

Many of my Egyptian co-workers are well-educated, fairly liberal people and even some of them complain that they want a STRICTER form of sharia here.

e.g., one guy does not think a woman should be stoned to death in cases of adultery. He thinks BOTH parties should be publicly stoned to death.

Sharia has some funny kinks in the area of civil law as well. Here in Egypt, there is one fundamentalist asshat who has made a career of suing people for "insulting Islam."

A few years ago, he brought a civil suit against a prominent Egyptian writer/educator who had DARED to write something critical of Islam. His lawsuit insisted that the man's wife divorce him, because her husband's writings meant he was no longer a Muslim. He was an infidel.

Neither party wanted a divorce. They had been married for a couple of decades and all. But the asshat went to Al-Azhar University in Cairo and got a religious judgment agreeing with him.

Then he took that decision to a court of law, which also agreed with him and ordered the couple to divorce.

They fled Egypt and are now living in the West, under constant death threats thanks to the fatwas against them.

I can't believe anyone wants to see this sort of nonsense in the West.

I also don't believe for a minute that this will stay on the modest local Muslims-only level the proponents are claiming. It is not in the nature of any theocrat to win a battle and retire. They ALWAYS push for more. I can see that just by looking at American Fundies.

They would all like very much if we converted to their particular theology. But if we are too stubborn to do that, they will settle for passing laws that force us to behave just like them. Or else.

[Book Lover]

4. Can you please post this post in the other threads on this topic when they flare up again?

The relativists are out in force on the topic, and I think your POV is invaluable.

[Warpy]

5. I liken it more to the Beth Din

the Jewish law court that settles a lot of disputes within the Orthodox community.

Often, the larger legal system never even hears about these cases because both complainants are believers and will abide by the decision of the religious court. The secular courts never receive any sort of petition, not even from the sore loser.

My guess is that this is already occurring in the UK in Muslim neighborhoods among believers and that the Archbishop was just recognizing that fact.

[funflower]

8. I think these religious courts are fine, so long as they are private.

People are free to settle their disputes any way they want. I would liken two Muslims going to a Sharia court for a "divorce" to two business entities agreeing to submit to arbitration rather than suing.

However, as with arbitrators, there is no need for these kinds of groups to have "supplemental jurisdiction" from the secular authorities. To the degree they have "jurisdiction," it flows solely from the consent of the adult individuals involved, who should be able to opt out at any time. Disputes that go beyond the private (e.g. criminal acts) or disputes where any party does not consent to the alternative forum (or, as with children, cannot consent) should be the exclusive province of the government legal system, which should never, ever rely on religious texts in its decision-making.