This is a real concern: Should Shari'a Law be introduced into civil courts?

by azaria 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  azaria

  Here is an excerpt from the first site.

  Premier Dalton McGinty is considering allowing an Islamic court to resolve domestic disputes among the Muslim community in Ontario by applying sharia law, a 1400 year old system of religious law. The plan was proposed by the Islamic Institute for Civil Justice and is vehemently opposed by the Muslim Canadian Congress, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and by several legal and women's groups. Ontario's former Attorney-General Marion Boyd is hearing from both sides of the issue while Attorney-General Michael Bryant is already busy looking at ways to have it up and running this year.

  http://www.listenuptv.com/

  http://www.nosharia.com/main.htm
• 

  avishai

  Hell no. Just think of the mess we'd have if we allowed JW's their own courts. Multiculturalism sounds good, but it does'nt work.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  To those of you who grew up "in the Truth" but wanted out, the answer should be clearly no. If you thought you were subjected to a stifling and unduly restrictive system then read up on sharia law. Teenage girls in France from Muslims homes who were caught not wearing the hijabs while at school were physically punished by parents and sometimes even beaten by other members of their religious community. If only the adults who subjected themselves to this were involved then I'd say its their poison, but thats not realistically going to be the case.
  

  Also to any who like to argue that Sharia law is equitable and just to all involved including women as long as these individuals are filling their traditional roles, what's the chances of that happening in a different culture, land and time? Were they truly fair to begin with? Tell that to the 13 year forced to marry someone who already has another wife or two.

  Finally and on a different note, the last thing I need is for more women to have one more excuse to turn me down.
• 

  Narkissos

  This is a vivid illustration of where the principle of "communitarian (vs. individual) integration" logically leads to. That's why I definitely prefer the French pattern of one (secular) law for all, religion and every other kind of "community identity" being strictly private. However that may well be an idealistic lost fight already.
• 

  ColdRedRain

  That's why I definitely prefer the French pattern of one (secular) law for all, religion and every other kind of "community identity" being strictly private. However that may well be an idealistic lost fight already.

  Why should religion be a private thing? If you have beliefs, you should have the right to display them.

  I prefer the Anglophonic system when it deals with religion (Minus the CoE in the UK and parts of the American south). You have a right to express a religious belief but don't be offended if we think you're a whacko. Also, religion (Again, minus the CoE in the UK and parts of the American south.) is not allowed to touch government and vice versa. The French system tends to attack religion and establishes secularism, which in itself is a belief system.
• 

  Carmel

  Only problem, (well not the only) there are as many intrepretations and versions of Shar'i law as there are translations of the Koran. Which one would apply? There you go, another attempt to bow to the fringe!

  carmel
• 

  Elsewhere

  This is EXACTLY why the US constitution says that the government may not make an establishment of religion.

  Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea! Bad idea!
• 

  DireStraitJacket

  I know that in the northern partts of Nigeria they have Shari'a courts, its helped fuel long running battles between christians and muslims in that country.
  How extreme would the laws be? Can you imagine any of the following happening in the US?
  
  
  ""On Monday this week the case against a 23-year-old man, Jibrin Babaji, who was convicted of sodomy after confessing to molesting three young boys, was thrown out on appeal, after a sharia judge ruled there should have been four witnesses.""
  sounds way to familiar...
• 

  Narkissos

  The French system tends to attack religion and establishes secularism, which in itself is a belief system.

  I don't think the French system attacks religion at all: any religion may be practiced and even publicly "displayed" within the general bounds of public order.

  I don't think secularism is a belief system. It is just a practical way of ensuring a sort of "neutral" public space where every individual citizen can be offered equal treatment regardless of his/her background, beliefs or disbeliefs. The same system was applied for decades in muslim Turkey for instance.

  This is particularly important in courts (back to the topic).

  In Iran there is a communitarian system. Islamic courts apply their version of the shari'a for the majority of citizens. If you are born a Zoroastrian, a Chaldean or Armenian Christian, you will be deferred to the competent religious authority in your community for most civil offences. But if you are born in a Muslim family and became a Christian, or an atheist, the Islamic court will judge you. The individual is nothing, only the (recognized) community matters. Personally I prefer the secular option, applying the same law to any individual. And I think most religious people would readily agree.