| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Sorry, Rowan. Archdhimmi of Canterbury Update.
Many have pointed out that Orthodox Jews have private arbitration courts for marriage and family issues, and that's all that Williams was saying Muslims should have in Britain. But there are key differences: Islamic law is a program for the governance of the state, and there is no easy sundering of that program from family and marriage law, so it is certain that if Islamic law is instituted even in part in the UK, some Muslims will press for the rest to follow, including the institutionalized subjugation of non-Muslims.
From AP (thanks to all who sent this in):
LONDON, England (AP) -- The archbishop of Canterbury has called for a limited application of Islamic law in Britain. Muslims praised the proposal but the government rejected it.Rowan Williams, the UK's highest ranking Christian leader, is noted for addressing controversial issues.
The unusual suggestion from Britain's highest ranking Christian leader Thursday would, if adopted, allow British Muslims to choose to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic law, known as Shariah, rather than through British courts.
Archbishop Rowan Williams said in a radio interview with the BBC that incorporating Islamic law could help improve Britain's flagging social cohesion.
"Certain provisions of Shariah are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system," said Williams, who gave a speech on the topic Thursday night.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman immediately rejected Williams' proposal.
"The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," said Michael Ellam.
The idea was also rejected by Sayeed Warsi, an opposition spokeswoman for social affairs. She said all British citizens had to be subject to the same laws developed by Parliament.
Williams said he was not advocating that Britain allow extreme aspects of Shariah, which has been associated with harsh punishments meted out by Islamic courts in Saudi Arabia and some other countries and has been used to undermine the rights of women.
"Nobody in their right mind" would want to see that, he said. He called for "a clear eye" when discussing Islamic law.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said the use of Shariah would help lower tensions in British society.
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British," he said. "It would give Muslims the sense that the British respect our faith."
I can see the second point, but I don't see the first. How would it make Muslims in Britain feel anything but contempt for the kafir British laws from which they are exempt?
Shafiq said it was important that non-Muslims in Britain understand that Williams is not suggesting Shariah be adopted for resolving criminal charges, but only civil disputes.Shafiq and Williams noted that Britain already allows Orthodox Jews to resolve disputes under traditional Jewish law. [...]
But there are dangers involved in letting one community apply one type of justice while another uses a different system, said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East studies at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, who has written extensively about militant Islam.
"It's a minefield," he said. "Britain is a nation of laws, once you say to a community that they can apply their own laws, you are establishing a dangerous precedent."
Yes.
Posted by Robert at February 8, 2008 8:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
In the following column, the female Mohammedan says:
"Muslims will never fully assimilate into American culture, and there is nothing wrong with that."
Got that? OK, check this out from the same column:
"When the Gospels were altered and corruption spread, Allah sent the Torah. When this was altered by man, Allah sent the Quran to the prophet Muhammed."
Got that? My God, it's too early for such sickening and conpletely wrong Mohammedan crapola.
Posted by: darcy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 8, 2008 8:43 AM
This is why experts on Islam have said that Islam could be as much as 75Pct. political rather than religious with its imposing sharia law.
Posted by: Mackie at February 8, 2008 8:45 AM
The Beth Din courts, while probably not the best of ideas, they are not exempt from British Law, is it?
Can't any and all of their decisions be overridden?
The differences between Islamic Shari'ah law and western democratic principles are staggering. The impact on Muslim women in the UK is most noticeable. Any accomodation to it in the UK would be disasterous.
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British,"
--Shafiq--
Does ANYONE here have an ounce of belief in this statement?
Posted by: awake at February 8, 2008 9:04 AM
"It's a minefield," he said. "Britain is a nation of laws, once you say to a community that they can apply their own laws, you are establishing a dangerous precedent."
It's worse than that, it is doom, unless you convert, move away or don't mind being a dhimmi.
It is the end of the established order. The Arch may not want the severe punishments of Shari'a, but if you open that door, that's what you will end up with. This is because Islam enforces it's edicts with bodily punishment, effective, but barbaric and primitive.
Just because someone has some high and mighty position, in religion or elsewhere, does not relieve them of the curse of periodic poor judgment.
This idea of the Arch is poor judgment, as is recognized by the gov that shelved that one quick...
at February 8, 2008 9:05 AM
"The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," said Michael Ellam.
S'funny. Most of our laws come from the EU.
The last I heard, Gordon was trying his damnedest to sign away our sovereignty too.
More taqqiya from al-Broon.
Posted by: watling at February 8, 2008 9:13 AM
The Beth Din courts, while probably not the best of ideas, they are not exempt from British Law, is it?Can't any and all of their decisions be overridden?
Posted by: awake at February 8, 2008 9:04 AM
What a Bet Din does can be done by any 2 parties independently of their religious affiliations.
In all cases of arbitration, both sides must voluntarily accept to be arbitrated.
I'm not a lawyer but I think you get the idea.
Posted by: Shy Guy at February 8, 2008 9:25 AM
Shy Guy,
I do get the idea. Specifically, I was referring to the ability of British Law to override a decision of the Beth Din assuming a party feels aggreived at a time subsequent to their voluntary arbitration.
I do not consider Jewish and Islamic courts of this nature to be equal, but Williams and whoever has their hand in his back are attempting to broker them in that light, hence the caution.
Posted by: awake at February 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
I have been on the phone to my friends in the UK about this issue...and the majority of them are over the moon.
The lift in spirits and confidence has been amazing...most of them will have offered special prayers today.
They said "We know we are here to stay and here for dawah...all of a sudden it feels right...all of a sudden it feels holy and the light of Islam is upon all...christianity is for whimps.
It is natural for the PM to say what he did...we would expect that....but this is certainly a turning point....well done that man!
Posted by: Naseem at February 8, 2008 10:14 AM
Naseem wrote:
"but this is certainly a turning point"
Agreed, but not the turning point that you perceive. The request was REJECTED.
Now, back in your hole, you troll.
Posted by: awake at February 8, 2008 10:19 AM
"It's a minefield," he said. "Britain is a nation of laws, once you say to a community that they can apply their own laws, you are establishing a dangerous precedent."
Yes.
Yes! Once you allow formation of a 'state within a state' you had just been invaded. A nation must have ALL its members, citizens and subjects alike, including resident alien immigrants, obey the SAME laws, if it is to be a 'nation of laws'. Anything else is divisive and seditious. Islamists are WRONG to demand special treatments within the state. They also have the ultimate freedom, to LEAVE and go take their demands back to where they came from. One wonders why they left their Islamic inequality-paradise in the first place?
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 8, 2008 10:22 AM
No to any religious -or other- legal sub-systems!
The laws are what the people have agreed upon for the entire nation.
Any infiltration of counter-legal sub-systems begins the rot.
No to this subversion!
at February 8, 2008 10:30 AM
If two Muslims in a particular region take their problems to the local Imam and resolve their domestic and civil disputes among themselves, I cannot see where the state could intervene. If Orthodox Jews have private arbitration courts there would be no basis for not allowing Muslims, Hindus, or Shintoists to do the same.
Here comes the big however - The outrage would be if the state passes laws enforcing the decision of the Imam. If a party is not satisfied with the resolution brokered by a Rabbi, I presume he or she could seek a resolution in civil court.
When an uncle of mine passed away many years ago, his will divided the property among his two children a certain way. In this case the children did not exactly follow the will. The child who got the house did not want it. Another child took posession of the house in exchange for another parcel of land. There were no disputes and there was no way the courts could have intervened.
Likewise a Muslim could write a Sharia compliant will and the state cannot intervene unless one of the heirs complains (files a lawsuit).
Here's an example of a private arbitration forum: "The People's Court" TV show. The "contestants" agree to have Judge Whatshisname issue a decree. I presume that the contracts the participants sign have a clause where the dispute can still go to a state court if they are not satisfied.
As long as no laws are passed that enforce the decision of the Rabbi, Imam, or Judge Wapner, I see no problem.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 8, 2008 10:36 AM
"christianity is for whimps." --posted above
Islam is for mass-murderers.
at February 8, 2008 11:08 AM
Pelayo,
I agree with your point that it may be very difficult for the state to get involved when none of the parties involved in a dispute WANT the state involved, but I disagree with you that this isn't a problem.
In the example you gave, with the dispute of the inheritence, sure, the state's involvement was not required, and everything worked out. But when you have a cultural aversion to the very VALIDITY of western law, as many Muslims do, then you're going to have huge cultural pressure within these communities against anyone seeking out Western law, if there are already more legitimate (in their eyes) Sharia courts operating. You're going to see Western law relegated to insignificance, and you're going to have parallel communities living with different legal and value systems, and that's going to lead to horrible ethnic conflict, IMO. It doesn't matter whether or not the state legally enforces Sharia---it will be enforced within the Islamic communities be their own members. The state will become a bystander while society changes and fragments drastically.
Posted by: Boston Tea Party at February 8, 2008 11:18 AM
Many have pointed out that Orthodox Jews have private arbitration courts for marriage and family issues,
the difference is, Orthodox Jews are not trying to impose their laws on everyone and do not have any intention of doing so. Where throughout history, Muslims have tried to impose their cult and laws on third parties and Maududi likewise wrote that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth, nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”
But Qutb and Maududi did not originate these ideas. They are an extrapolation of Qur’anic passages such as 9:29, which assumes that Muslims will wield state power over Jews and Christians, exacting from them a poll tax (jizya) and making sure that they pay it “with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” There is no concept in the Qur’an, Islamic tradition, or Islamic law of non-Muslims living as equals with Muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims must be in a superior position. The Muslim prophet Muhammad emphasized this when he told his followers:
Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294) so allowing sharia law to have any legal standing in a non-Muslim country is just the nose of the camel and must not be allowed
at February 8, 2008 11:20 AM
It would be fun to learn from the Archbishop what exactly he has in mind, as the elements of "family law" according to the Shari'a that Muslim clerics should be allowed to impose, on other Muslims living in England.
Would it involve unequal inheritances for female children? The requirement of four male witnesses in cases of rape? The divorce Muslim-style, where all the man has to do is triple-talaq (Talaq, Talaq, Talaq) the wife, to be rid of her? Would it be the practice of polygamy itself? What exactly are the parts of the Shari'a that the Archbishop thinks Muslims should be allowed to apply in that blessed spot, that sceptr'd isle, of England?
He can put up his list right here. Or simply spell it out, if he prefers, in an article for the London press. But he must be specific. He must not engage in generalities. We want to know exactly the laws he thinks Muslims can usefully apply, while living in, and presumably owing allegiance to, the legal and political institutions of Great Britain.
Detail is not merely welcome. It is essential. And accuracy is not merely a virtue in the statement of one's views. It is a necessity.
at February 8, 2008 11:24 AM
Naseem's doing her thing to get everyone riled up, but as usual, she's missed the point completely. Who cares if her friends have been misled into thinking Sharia's about to take over? Muslims make up whatever they want and then tell everyone it's the truth. But the proof is in the pudding.
I've been reading Alison Weir's book about Queen Isabella (no relation) and it is a real eye opener. The people of England have had a long history of being invaded but they always have managed to repel the invaders. They've gone to war about a b-zillion times and they don't take things lying down. Their resistance to Hitler's bombings during WWII is legendary. Remember back in the 80's when the Falkland Islands started acting up and Margaret Thatcher sent the troops down to effectively kick some ass, which they did in a matter of days? It will take more than a backassward ideology like Islam, where Naseem's biggest concern in the morning is which foot to put forward on her way to the potty, to destroy an ancient and fierce fighting culture like England's.
Naseem can gloat all she wants, but she doesn't know her western history and she can't read the signs, the signs that are all around us now, that Britain is on the verge of a massive attack of vomiting, and when the dust settles it will be the whining Muslim hoards that are expelled, and they won't even know what hit 'em.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 8, 2008 11:29 AM
OT:
More empty bravado about easily handling Robert in a "debate" at the ATF by the rather unsavory Mohammed Elibiary (posting under the nic 'Hamada', over at muslimmatters.org.
Posted by: awake at February 8, 2008 11:30 AM
Boston Tea Party, what you wrote is probbly already happening, and I can think of nothing that can be done to reverse it except to ban Muslim immigration and start wholesale deportations. The pressure you mentioned is already there. People cannot be forced to take their problems to a state court or a legally sanctioned, bonded secular arbitrator unless one party demands it. If those Muslims who have a deep aversion and dislike of western law never complain to a court, how can a government intervene in a specific dispute that it knows nothing about?
Yessiree, it will lead to cultural conflict; it already has.
This problem is with Islam and not the idea of private resolution of disputes.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 8, 2008 12:07 PM
Hugh, I'll wager that the Archbishop doesn't know enough about Sharia to even begin to make specific statements. He just might know more about brain surgery than he does Islamic law.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 8, 2008 12:12 PM
Incredible that the Prime Minister of Great Britain is put into a position where even he has to take notice of a statement, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that some parts of the Shari'a will be valid for Great Britain and that this development is "unavoidable."
Think of what this means.
Posted by: Hugh at February 8, 2008 12:23 PM
In case my previous comment/link (in yesterday's post on the same topic)hasn't been noticed http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493436.stm , this item and Isabellthecrusader's link prove that civil issues are the farthest things from minds, intent wise.
After reading the death fa(r)twa item, I reeled in disbelief that the Crown Prosecutors haven't laid criminal charges! (conspiracy, uttering a threat, assault, ....)
Rowan is a Quisling of the first order.
at February 8, 2008 12:27 PM
"christianity is for whimps."
LOL... This, from the person who believes I, act like a five-year old! LOL...
By the way, it's "wimps", not "whimps".
at February 8, 2008 12:32 PM
Hugh, to me it means that Great Britian has not yet sorted out the concept of separation of church and state.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 8, 2008 12:41 PM
Awake-- thanks. I passed the link on to Robert.
Posted by: MarisolJW at February 8, 2008 12:50 PM
. . . and the Archbishop has obviously risen way above his level of incompetence.
Posted by: Pelayo at February 8, 2008 12:58 PM
Naseem, please don't encourage your friends to lift up unholy prayers to allah - not just yet - because we don't need any more satan worshippers gloating over a false victory, and invoking demonic powers will only make matters worse.
Posted by: champ at February 8, 2008 12:59 PM
Amid all the legal smoke, let's not forget:-
Orthadox Jews, have their family traditions which pose NO threat to ANYONE. They have NO goal for total subjugation of society. They obey the laws of the land like any other decent citizen. They work hard, win nobel peace prizes, create new medicines, and put men on the moon.
They do NOT force their womenfolk to take second place to men.
And they do NOT commit honor-killings of female members of their families involved in "marital disputes".
End of story.
Posted by: Infidel419 at February 8, 2008 1:06 PM
Isabella, Naseem's a GIRL?
Hmmph, from the posts, I always envisioned a hairy, bearded, stoop-shouldered ... Ooohhh. ;P
************
Quote from Pelayo:
[The Archdhimmi of Cadbury Cream Eggs] just might know more about brain surgery than he does Islamic law.
... yeah, having apparently practiced on himself a few times.
at February 8, 2008 1:09 PM
Hi Lori B,
Naseem claims to be a woman, but others think she is either a man or a collection of both; and Naseem has said that 'her' name is male, so it does make it rather confusing.
Those who think she's a colleciton of both are not without reason, because her/his style of writing can change from one post to the next, as if several people use her log-in (perhaps without her knowledge).
Who knows, she may be hairy & bearded, which might explain the required burqa.
Posted by: champ at February 8, 2008 1:18 PM
Well, actually Lori B and Champ, Hugh has said on many occasions that Naseem is female. When she and I have gotten into it she appears to be a female. However, there are times when I think someone else is using her computer, who acts and sounds like a guy. My real suspicion is that Naseem is Sybil (think Joanne Woodward and Sally Field) and that she has a myriad of useful personalities when she is doing her best to imitate Tokyo Rose.
I've often thought that Naseem couldn't possibly be as gullible as she makes herself out to be. But since viewing Jihad Sheilas on You Tube, it is apparent that these be-Hefty bagged babes really believe that living a subservient life and squirting out kids who can be used in child sacrifice is the way to go. I'm guessing their eagerness to submit has something to do with the physical abuse they sustain that somehow causes brain damage. That, coupled with terror in the home, must make them very pliable and subject to believing that they aren't very bright and should go along with whatever the men in their midst say goes. Poor pitiful things.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 8, 2008 1:49 PM
Hi Isa!
I've read the same thing from Hugh, but I've also read that Robert insists that Naseem is a guy and to simply leave him alone. (I've tried, Robert, REALLY I have!)
Personally, I think Naseem is a woman, for the same reasons that you've outlined; and your Sybil scenario is hilarious, one that may have some truth behind it.
She certainly is a woman of mystery!
Posted by: champ at February 8, 2008 2:17 PM
Hi Champ!
Naseem is really a spoon (or as my kids would say, a tool, but that's not very nice.) She likes to stir things up, but really, if your life was as boring as hers, with no control over what she does (I'm still giggling over the dance steps into the bathroom,) you would probably want to cause some trouble just to keep it interesting. Plus she's got to spout the party line of us all becoming Muslims, blah, blah, blah, because it's dangerous in her whacko belief system not to and because she can't stand that we are free and she is not. Misery loves company.
I do thinks it's funny though, that the control freak in the "religion" of control has no control over her son falling in love with a Christian woman. So much for all our grand daughters becoming Muslims and liking it. You and I will be taking her grand daughters to the beach! Board fries and boogie boards, yeah baby!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 8, 2008 3:44 PM
Meanwhile, in today's Toronto Sun, under the headline, "Harems Pay Off for Muslims":
http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/02/08/4834588-sun.html
The arrogance. That's what pisses me off.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at February 8, 2008 4:33 PM
All of you people out there need to remember how duplicitous Brown and his Muppet's really are.
This is a tried and tested tactic of theirs, that, - over the years has served them well.
It goes something like this;
Get one of your minions from the church - civil service - Euro M.Ps. Ect, - Ect, - to bring into the public arena, a view that is so outrageous and diverse, that it is immediately condemned unanimously from all sides. - Including I may add, this very government whose idea it was in the first place.
Then - When all and sundry have had their say - and have piped down for a while - introduce this outrageous scheme anyway - slowly, - and through the back door at first, and see how far it is allowed to travel.
If people, once again start kicking up a fuss - condemn it once again, and blame underlings for going behind governmental departments back.
at February 8, 2008 5:27 PM
Now PM Brown says that he believes in the primacy of British law and not shari’a. And yet only a week ago, it transpired that he had sanctioned polygamy in Britain, and worse, the state was going to support multiple wives for Muslim men. In addition, he is busy destroying the primacy of British law by reducing parliament to a regional assembly by signing the EU constitution.
Never has such gross and blatant abuse of powers occurred in British history. Brown and Labour think that parliament is theirs to do with as they please, when in fact it is placed in their trust for a short period of time.
Posted by: DP111 at February 8, 2008 6:22 PM
Hi Isa!
I find it amusing that Naseem continues to promote her wacked-out-Islam here on JW/DW to an audience that has repeatedly turned her down, and unless I haven't been paying attention, I don't think she's earned a single convert - correct me if I'm wrong. She reminds me of the salesmen that (used) to call my house and try to sell me things I would never buy. Like, how many times do I need to say, "NO THANK YOU"?
Yeah - I thought that my MIL was annoying, so I can only imagine how Naseem must treat her "Christian" daughter-in-law. Poor thing. I once told Naseem that I thought that she would be the MIL from hell, based solely upon opinions expressed about her HERE on JW, and she took great offense to that comment. Well, honey, if the shoe fits.
Take care!
at February 8, 2008 8:36 PM
Well Miss Champ,
Not that I want to enjoy Naseem's misery, especially with it being Lent and all, but this continuing to try and wear us down with her you're-all-going-to-be-Muslims B.S. does get annoying, and she knows it. I'll never be a Muslim, first of all, because I value my Catholic faith, enough to ensure that my grandkids will get to choose for themselves. If Islam takes over they won't have any choice and frankly, that's unacceptable. I'll also never be a Muslim because I have no respect for Islam or Muslims, not after I see how they behave. Thirdly, I think Islam is an embarrassment to the human race. These people are so backwards and their lying really gets on my nerves. Again, going back to Jihad Sheilas, the one woman named Rabia who is considered the grand dame of Al-Qaeda and who speaks with a throw-another-shrimp-on-the-barbie Australian accent tries to get us to believe that American soldiers went into a village where she was hiding and slaughtered all the men women and children who lived there. Nice try, Rabia, but it's bullshit. American soldiers are not allowed to go into a village and kill everyone. They're barely allowed to defend themselves because some whining Muslim opportunist will do just what this woman did, exaggerate and lie to make people feel sorry for them. Does anybody really think Muslims are mistreated at Gitmo? Well, her two older sons were caught running guns in, I think it was Egypt, and it was a woe is me moment. It always seems whenever Muslims get caught doing something the rest of the human community disapproves of, there has to be a lot of whining and excuse making to make it look like they weren't trying to kill you when they really were. I am so over Muslims.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 8, 2008 9:53 PM
Miss Champ! I like that.....
Miss Isa, gee, I sound like a snake. LOL!
Anyway....
You're probably right. Naseem isn't after converts for her god of the underworld, she only comes here to gloat and to pour salt & vinegar into our wounds, as she would interpret wounds. And I agree with everything you just stated, I am SO over Muslims too.
Posted by: champ at February 8, 2008 11:57 PM
Yeah, I like the Miss thing. I picked that up when I lived in the south. I never did pick up y'all though. Being a California girl, I just cannot bring myself to say it. But I like the folks who do.
Well, I've had enough jihad watchin' for tonight. Have a good one and I'll talk to you later. : )
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at February 9, 2008 12:18 AM
Jewish law explicitly states that secular law comes first. The only time it can be disobeyed is when it forces one to commit idolatry. A Din Bet is indeed an body of arbitration . For example a religeous divorce cannot be granted without a Din Bet,to ensure the female gets that which was agreed to in the marriage contract; but it has NO legal standing. It is strictly religious and the couple must still go thru a secular divorce. It is strictly for non criminal cases.
Posted by: eneri at February 9, 2008 11:29 AM
Jewish law explicitly states that secular law comes first. The only time it can be disobeyed is when it forces one to commit idolatry. A Din Bet is indeed an body of arbitration . For example a religeous divorce cannot be granted without a Din Bet,to ensure the female gets that which was agreed to in the marriage contract; but it has NO legal standing. It is strictly religious and the couple must still go thru a secular divorce. It is strictly for non criminal cases.Posted by: eneri at February 9, 2008 11:29 AM
"Jewish law explicitly states that secular law comes first."
Next you say:
"The only time it can be disobeyed is when it forces one to commit idolatry."
"A Din Bet"
"is indeed an body of arbitration."
"For example a religeous divorce cannot be granted without a Din Bet,to ensure the female gets that which was agreed to in the marriage contract; but it has NO legal standing. It is strictly religious and the couple must still go thru a secular divorce."
"It is strictly for non criminal cases."
at February 9, 2008 12:14 PM
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British," says Mohammed Shafiq.
I don't think so. Most likely it would make Muslims in the UK feel like Britten is finally becoming more Islamic. They don't want to become British, they want Britten to become Islamic. Muslims that do not like British laws should leave Britten, not try to make it more Islamic!
Posted by: Joe61 at February 10, 2008 12:06 AM
You're being pedantic, Shyguy. The point that Eneri was trying to make was that (with the exception of Israel) Bet Din arbitration must be in compliance with local laws of the jurisdiction in question. That's NOT what Rowan was asking for, regarding sharia.
In the second place, again outside of Israel, most Jews, myself included, wouldn't know where to find a Bet Din; they're an anachronism useful exclusively to the Orthodox in our community (of COURSE any Jewish community member could make use of them but why WOULD they?).
Morgaan, your first comment was spot on; no need to elaborate! :)
Posted by: DaninVan at February 11, 2008 4:40 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)