Should religious courts be recognised as part of the British legal system? There’s an outline of the issues on the Divorce Sharia Style Talking Point page. And you can read more about the programme at Divorce Sharia Style on the Channel 4 Faith and Belief website.
Julia Bard Editor channel4.com/belief channel4.com/shariahtv
Law should be based on inalienable human rights. Where Law is contrary to such we should exercise our rights as citizens to lobby against such.
One would have to question, for example, certain tenats of a sharia law (the obvious example) that would sentence a woman to be stoned to death for commiting adultery - but by the same token one might well oppose a law that facilitates the killing of 190,000 unborn every year.
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
My name is Dr Riaz, I am a Proud British Muslim, Let me begin with stating that many of the Human Rights we boast today are incorperated from Islamic History, one only needs to visit the Geneva, so let us not paint a picture due our own ill education.
Moving swiftly on to the subject of discussion, i was sick to the gut watching this programme, i am also aware of the actvities and the hate that is promoted by the minority extremist sect a [off shoot of Wahaabi islam] Ahle Hadith whom the the aforementioned "Sheikh Shoaib Hassan" is a leader of, i am surprised that people like Abu Hamza are locked behind bars yet this guy roams freely. The programme seemed more to based around clearing his name of being a extremist preacher. As a Muslim i am taught through Islamic teachings [not those that Mr Shoaib Hassan and his org pick and chose and interpret as and how they feel] we are to abide by the laws that are existent within the land we reside in and not rebel against those nor try and implement our own so that they can suit us. Honestly, the British Justice system is in itself complete- If we look at the facts most of these divorces are based amongst 'sub-continental muslims' and not a issue concerning British Muslims who fully accept the decrees for divorce through civil courts. Basically it is people who have imported wives/husbands from back home, who cost the tax payers millions and i am sick of it, as it really tarnishes british Muslims. I can tell you as i have also been a previous mayor for the borough, that the islamic sharia counciil has forced its rulings upon various individuals and documented evidence of this can be presented to relevent authorties- it only represents a handful of people, and is funded by Saudi petro dollars. The programme falsely attributed that it was one of the biggest mosques in London i am sorry to say but its not even the 3rd biggest in Waltham Forest. I believe those that want to live under sharia law [which may i say is made by men and implemented by men] should migrate to a country which is governed by it. No Muslim country is governed by sharia law fully so why should Britain be? For me this prog was about Mr Shoaib Hassan to have his name cleared as a hate preacher, and finally to squeeze funds from the government to make his organisation look legitimate- Millions of British Moderate muslims would like to such organisations removed and closed down, as they are trying to isolate a already isolated Muslims community and i hate the fact the media seems to bring such hate preaching Mullahs to the forefront to represent British Muslims- I am sorry but i was totally sickened by this programme and would urge the C4 to not promote such organisations and there hate fuelled leaders who have two faces.
I think the division between state law and church law is a good one in many ways. A Catholic cab get a legal divorce but still be married in the eyes of the church - and if the church grants an anullment or dissolution of a marriage they would still be legally married (as far as I am aware).
priests and vicars will often be registras - so obviating the need to go to a registry office after the wedding. I'm guessing (though don't know for certain) that certain Imams would likewise be registras.
But anyway - regarding the separation of state law and church law - what is the problem? why do muslims want their courts recognised by the state? Is this to do with Ummah? If there are any muslims reading this I would be interested in hearing your views - and you can correct any crass generalisations that I may have made
where
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
you say you are tuaght through Islamic teachings - but I would imagine every muslim would say the same thing
you speak about Shoaib Hassan "picking and choosing" - but surely every one who reads the Koran - the word of Allah - engages in a process of interpretation - and isn't the problem here that there is no one interpretation.
I am a christian and i believe that the bible is the word of God in human words - but the bible is a book and as such requires interpretation - and the church is its official interpreter. where such authority is denied - you have division.
Is it the same with Islam? Is there one interpretation or many?
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
Originally posted by Have a Word: Law should be based on inalienable human rights. Where Law is contrary to such we should exercise our rights as citizens to lobby against such.
One would have to question, for example, certain tenats of a sharia law (the obvious example) that would sentence a woman to be stoned to death for commiting adultery - but by the same token one might well oppose a law that facilitates the killing of 190,000 unborn every year.
Reply: Dear readers, I quite understand the reservation expressed above. But, Islam is a living religion and open to "Ijtihad" [Innovative Interpretation]. IT MUST BE UNDER STOODthat 'Textual' evidence from the body of the Qur'an is the primary source of Sharia Jurisprudence. Qur'an does NOT prescribe "Stoning" for any violation of Sharia. I wish to challenge anyone who thinks otherwise. "Stoning" was prescribed in the case of a JEWISH person, the judgement being based on TORAH and NOT Qur'an, in accordance with 'Jewish Personal Law'. Besides, "Stoning" was a widely followed "Cultural Practice" at the time in the middle-east. In modern times, we have to modify the penalty to suit the transgression, just as "Qasaas" [execution] need not be done by beheading with a sword, just like one does not have to travel on a camel's back or perform ablution by drawing water from a well, or dress in the same attire as 15 centuries ago.
Besides, application of Sharia is contingent upon prevelence of "Social justice and security" in the society as a whole. One cannot abstract and apply "penalties" out of context without the countervaling obligation of the 'State' to maintain the civil society. Burden of Proof, of having indulged in adultry, is so strict that unless somebody performs it in PUBLIC, or willingly admits it [and there is corroborating evidence]... it cannot be proved. Even pregnancy of a woman has been rejected as a proof of adultry. Misapplication of Sharia be it in Saudi Arabia, or in Nigeria or in Pakistan, is absolutely no evidence that it is addmissible in Islam, too.
If someone wishes to study this, and/or any other aspect of Sharia, they are welcome.
I am not being apologetic. I have no hesitation in stating that adultry is a major "sin" in Islam which upholds the sanctity of "Family" as a paramount value. This is one reason why [subject to strict caveats], up to four wives are permissible [not obligatory]. In 'western' cultures having extra marital affairs, as many as one wants, are considered fine ... while polygamy [with all the responsibilities that it entails] is considered barbaric. Food for thought perhaps.
Originally posted by julia bard: Should religious courts be recognised as part of the British legal system? There’s an outline of the issues on the Divorce Sharia Style Talking Point page. And you can read more about the programme at Divorce Sharia Style on the Channel 4 Faith and Belief website.
Just the idea that somebody might suggest that makes me sick to the stomach. Only channel 4 could come up with something so repulsive.
Originally posted by Have a Word: I am a christian and i believe that the bible is the word of God in human words - but the bible is a book and as such requires interpretation -
Firstly 'the word of god in human words' is just waffle. It's just an excuse for the obvious nonsense and contradictions in the book. Would you like to explain why an omnipotent being capable of creating everything including language cannot create a book that is clear and unambiguous.
quote:
and the church is its official interpreter. where such authority is denied - you have division.
Which church? Even within individual churches there is division disagreement and over time change of position.
quote:
Is it the same with Islam? Is there one interpretation or many?
Surely you are not suggesting that there is only one church and one interpretation. Even for something as pointless and abstract as the trinity there has been disagreement, argument and I suspect death for centuries. So, for every alternative interpretation, how do you (personally) know which is correct? On what basis do you make that decision? How can you be sure you are right?
Originally posted by free_thinker: Slightly off thread but... Firstly 'the word of god in human words' is just waffle. It's just an excuse for the obvious nonsense and contradictions in the book. Would you like to explain why an omnipotent being capable of creating everything including language cannot create a book that is clear and unambiguous.
Because God revealed himself to a people - and the bible is the record of Israel's relationship with Him. Faith is not so much an adherence to a set of do's and dont's - it is a relationship with a person. Life is not painting by numbers
quote:
Which church? Even within individual churches there is division disagreement and over time change of position.
There is one Church of Christ - which subsists in the Catholic Church
quote:
Surely you are not suggesting that there is only one church and one interpretation.
chu-ching - there it goes
quote:
Even for something as pointless and abstract as the trinity there has been disagreement, argument and I suspect death for centuries.
One couldn't come by such knowledge through natural reason alone - which is why we need revelation. But there is nothing pointless about the trinity. Walter Kasper gives a clever argument based on the question "How can one have a relationship with an unchanging God (A question I should like to ask our muslim members....) THe answer lies in the Trinity. Although God is unchanging there is an inner life - a dynamism - the trinity - and this we can have a relationship with.
quote:
So, for every alternative interpretation, how do you (personally) know which is correct? On what basis do you make that decision? How can you be sure you are right?
There is only one interpreter - the Church
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
Originally posted by free_thinker: Slightly off thread but... Firstly 'the word of god in human words' is just waffle. It's just an excuse for the obvious nonsense and contradictions in the book. Would you like to explain why an omnipotent being capable of creating everything including language cannot create a book that is clear and unambiguous.
Because God revealed himself to a people - and the bible is the record of Israel's relationship with Him. Faith is not so much an adherence to a set of do's and dont's - it is a relationship with a person. Life is not painting by numbers
quote:
Which church? Even within individual churches there is division disagreement and over time change of position.
There is one Church of Christ - which subsists in the Catholic Church
quote:
Surely you are not suggesting that there is only one church and one interpretation.
chu-ching - there it goes
quote:
Even for something as pointless and abstract as the trinity there has been disagreement, argument and I suspect death for centuries.
One couldn't come by such knowledge through natural reason alone - which is why we need revelation. But there is nothing pointless about the trinity. Walter Kasper gives a clever argument based on the question "How can one have a relationship with an unchanging God (A question I should like to ask our muslim members....) THe answer lies in the Trinity. Although God is unchanging there is an inner life - a dynamism - the trinity - and this we can have a relationship with.
quote:
So, for every alternative interpretation, how do you (personally) know which is correct? On what basis do you make that decision? How can you be sure you are right?
There is only one interpreter - the Church
The Old Catholic Church or The Roman Catholic Church?
[/QUOTE] There is one Church of Christ - which subsists in the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has remained steadfast in its opposition to contraception, even in the face of the HIV epidemic, where condom use is the one thing standing between millions of people and infection. Not only has the Church opposed condoms, but it has also been actively dishonest about the protection they provide against HIV. The head of the Vatican’s Office on the Family, Alfonso López Trujillo, proclaimed that condoms contain tiny holes that let the HIV virus through, while the Archbishop of Nairobi went even further, arguing that condoms actually assisted the spread of AIDS.
There is one Church of Christ - which subsists in the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has remained steadfast in its opposition to contraception, even in the face of the HIV epidemic, where condom use is the one thing standing between millions of people and infection. Not only has the Church opposed condoms, but it has also been actively dishonest about the protection they provide against HIV. The head of the Vatican’s Office on the Family, Alfonso López Trujillo, proclaimed that condoms contain tiny holes that let the HIV virus through, while the Archbishop of Nairobi went even further, arguing that condoms actually assisted the spread of AIDS.
...so you meet someone on an evening and one thing leads to another and before you know it you find yourselves in a motel room for the night when he/she drops the bombshell - "I should tell you - I have HIV"
"That's alright, says you - we'll use a condom...."
Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. Blaise Pascal
["My name is Dr Riaz, I am a Proud British Muslim."]
Whereas I fully agree with the conclusion reached by the writer, viz., "Government of UK should not be asked to implement Sharia" [paraphrazing mine], the arguments upon which this is predicated seem extremely flimsy and confused. To maintain that since something is not happening "elsewhere", it follows that it should not be "allowed" to happen in the UK, is logically and intellectually untennable! If this logic was admitted, then conversely it can also be argued, with equal justification, that what is "happening elsewhere", should happen "here"! Obviously this is absurd [I deploy the adjective in its dictionary sense, only].
It is valid to say that Sharia can only be "applied" by an Islamic state. and, since [self evidently] UK is not an Islamic state, it follows that it is equally "absurd" to demand that Sharia be applied here. In fact Islam does not advocate "coersive" application of Sharia at any place and at any time ... unless it is adopted by the people themselves, out of their free will ["Ther is no compulsion in religion. Guidance has manifestly been distinguished from darkness." [Qur'an II:256].
By the same token, if people wish to adopt it in a mixed society, they ought not to be prevented from opting for their free choice, either. The caveat being that they are free to adhere to only those aspects which do not "Contradict" the "Common Law" of the land, and they are not compelled to do so. Happily there are no provisions of the 'Personal Law' in Islam which contradict the British Common Law, either as upheld by convention and practice, or as encoded in the Parliamentary legislation. In a democratic pluralistic society, as we are, basic human rights, foremost of which freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, and freedom of association, are its building blocks, find equal emphasis in Islam [Sharia].
Thus, (say) in matters of acquisition of mortgage, contractual transactions, marriage and divorce, inheritance, education, dietary observance, and/or attire, if ALL parties, by free will, opt to subscribe to a certain code of conduct, IT OUGHT TO BE PERMISSIBLE, for them to do so. "Live and let live", being the moto. This, however must take account of accepted norms, sensitivities, convention and common law practices. Thus it may not be allowed to roam naked, to utter or indulge in "abuse", to resort to drugs, or in any way violate the countervailing rights of other citizens. In case of dissent between parties, law of the land has presedence in all matters. This is by virtue of unwritten "Social Contract" betwixt an individual and the State [or the Civil Society at large].
Applying this paradigm, if Muslims wish to resort to "Sharia Courts", in any matter personal to them, I can sustain no objection. However, it is conceded that no one should be subjected to coersive measure(s), rather make a choice of free volution. No one can [or should] insist that Muslims should seek redress from a Civil Court, if parties in a dispute freely agree to an arbitration by Sharia Court. There are two genere of violations; they are either in matters "personal" [where the state has no right or obligation to intervene], and matters "social and civil", where the state may be obliged to intervene. In many cases there is an overlap. Thus if a child is abused, fraud is committed, a person is assaulted, or deceasement occurs, the state may have a prior right to intervene. Let it be so. Of course the nature and severity of offence, and prevailing circumstances will determine whether the civil law should apply or whether the "community" can regulate itself. This is a matter of pragmatic consideration and of civil rights and common sense and we make these judgements and compromises every hour of every day. Option to apply Sharia Law is no exception.
Thus, without asking or expecting the government of the day to intervene, if Muslims make certain choices and exercise their freedom in matters relating to their personal and private affairs, no one can raise any credible objection. Prejudice excepted.
Muslims have no right to ask any government, anywhere, at any time to coerce people. Qur'an clearly and emphatically warns, "And (O! Muhammad)if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have been made to believe. Would you then compel humanity until they believe?"[X:99]. What could be more reasonable and manifest than, "Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them (mankind) in the best fashion." [XVI:125]? People should be lead by example and persuasive arguments and love of Allah, as the was the practice of the Prophet (peace upon him). Qur'an, irrespective of what is happening or Not happening "wherever", is a Criterion for those who wish to embrace it with free will. That is the essence of submission "ISLAM".
It a sign of our times that people endeavour to apologise for Islam and present themselves as "moderate" Muslims [whatever that means], hoping to seek acceptance and accolade. truth of the matter, however, is that Islam needs no apology. Despite what Muslims do or do not do, Islam is the ONLY religion which recognises ALL other faiths as divinely inspired [no other scripture on earth can produce textual evidence of this concept], and it is the only faith that insists upon compassion, equality, and respect for human rights; irrespective of colour, creed, gender or race. It is the only faith that abolishes all claims to previllege and distinction and "appropriation of divine rights" by birth or office, except "righteous conduct", being stipulated as the SOLE and ONLY criterion of status, "We (Allah) bestowed dignity upon the children of Adam ... Lo! The noblest of you (mankind), in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct" [XLIX:13]. I invite anyone to produce a single exhortation likes of this from a scripture.
Nevertheless, I must concur with the learned writer of this article that Muslims are stuck in the theological maze of the middle ages and have abdicated their unique responsibility, desire and ability to exercise innovative interpretation, as they did in the glorious past. But Islam should not be confused with Muslims. The message is uniquely independent of the messenger.
...so you meet someone on an evening and one thing leads to another and before you know it you find yourselves in a motel room for the night when he/she drops the bombshell - "I should tell you - I have HIV"
"That's alright, says you - we'll use a condom...."
But think of this. You meet someone on an evening and one thing leads to another and before you know it you find yourselves in a motel room for the night when he/she drops the bombshell - "I should tell you - I am an Evangelical Christian"
"That's alright, says you - I'll have a lobotomy and I'll be back in a jiffy...."
Originally posted by Have a Word: Because God revealed himself to a people - and the bible is the record of Israel's relationship with Him.
This is absolutely no good reason why the book should be contradictory and vague. It's just an excuse.
quote:
There is one Church of Christ - which subsists in the Catholic Church
How is your answer any more valid than that from a member of any other church?
quote:
But there is nothing pointless about the trinity.
Trying to decide whether a made up sky fairy is one or three is even more pointless than discussing what flavour black is.
quote:
quote:
So, for every alternative interpretation, how do you (personally) know which is correct? On what basis do you make that decision? How can you be sure you are right?
