The Regressive Left and Islam -- What is happening here?

[Ravi]

You accused Ravi of wanting to bring Sharia here. You suck at English....or you are frighteningly stupid.

What I actually said is that those who support the establishment of sharia family courts in the United States are supporting the importation of this legal system. This was in respose to Mac pointing out a thread in the CDZ where leftists were doing exactly that.

And you call ME stupid and unable to comprehend English, child?

Sharia is not a legal system in the USA nor can it ever be a legal system in the USA. That would be unconstitutional. It isn't even meant to be a legal system in Islamic countries but a spiritual path to follow.

If he didn't call you stupid, he made a mistake.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You accused Ravi of wanting to bring Sharia here. You suck at English....or you are frighteningly stupid.

What I actually said is that those who support the establishment of sharia family courts in the United States are supporting the importation of this legal system. This was in respose to Mac pointing out a thread in the CDZ where leftists were doing exactly that.

And you call ME stupid and unable to comprehend English, child?

Which thread was that?

And...you have poor writing skills for an Ivy League guy. True story.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It isn't even meant to be a legal system in Islamic countries but a spiritual path to follow.

.

Oh, my goodness.

Is your job here to throw out any truly idiotic nonsense that comes into your head as long as it supports Islam?

Obviously, sharia is not a legal system here, but there are those who advocate establishing it. When I opposed it's establishment, your puerile response was a bunch of your typical crap about my supposed "partisanship".

You are so thoroughly stuck in your adolescent acting-out phase that you simply oppose as a conditioned response.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Which thread was that?

And...you have poor writing skills for an Ivy League guy. True story.

You are quite the confused little drone if you think I ever said I went to an Ivy League school.

Apparently your knowledge of which schools are and are not part of the Ivy League is no greater than your knowledge of the subject matter immediately at hand.

 

[Ravi]

It isn't even meant to be a legal system in Islamic countries but a spiritual path to follow.

.

Oh, my goodness.

Is your job here to throw out any truly idiotic nonsense that comes into your head as long as it supports Islam?

Obviously, sharia is not a legal system here, but there are those who advocate establishing it. When I opposed it's establishment, your puerile response was a bunch of your typical crap about my supposed "partisanship".

You are so thoroughly stuck in your adolescent acting-out phase that you simply oppose as a conditioned response.

Why did you edit out much of my post? Too cowardly to address it, I'm guessing.

Do a little research and you will discover that Sharia is exactly what I stated. That it is perverted in some cultures does not change that fact.

It cannot be law in the USA as religions are not allowed to dictate laws.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It isn't even meant to be a legal system in Islamic countries but a spiritual path to follow.

.

Oh, my goodness.

Is your job here to throw out any truly idiotic nonsense that comes into your head as long as it supports Islam?

Obviously, sharia is not a legal system here, but there are those who advocate establishing it. When I opposed it's establishment, your puerile response was a bunch of your typical crap about my supposed "partisanship".

You are so thoroughly stuck in your adolescent acting-out phase that you simply oppose as a conditioned response.

Why did you edit out much of my post? Too cowardly to address it, I'm guessing.

Do a little research and you will discover that Sharia is exactly what I stated. That it is perverted in some cultures does not change that fact.

It cannot be law in the USA as religions are not allowed to dictate laws.

You are confusing sharia with jihad, you silly child.

But, hey -- don't let eighteen million five hundred thousand references get in your way of displaying the incredible extent of your ignorance, now, k?

Google

 

[LoneLaugher]

Which thread was that?

And...you have poor writing skills for an Ivy League guy. True story.

You are quite the confused little drone if you think I ever said I went to an Ivy League school.

Apparently your knowledge of which schools are and are not part of the Ivy League is no greater than your knowledge of the subject matter immediately at hand.

I stand corrected. Stanford is not Ivy. I don't know how I managed to make it this far thinking that it was. Thanks for the info.

Now...why are you still pretending that you didn't directly accuse Ravi of wanting to see Sharia law brought here? Can't admit when you fuck up?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

. I don't know how I managed to make it this far

I don't either.

Hey -- we agree!!

When I opposed the importation of Sharia, however, the little ignoramus called my response "partisan" , the implication being that the opposition to the introduction of Sharia stems from some sort of partisan position -- one that she opposes.

Of course, she doesn't know the difference between sharia and jihad, so her knowledge of the world seems no more extensive than your own.

 

[LoneLaugher]

. I don't know how I managed to make it this far

I don't either.

Hey -- we agree!!

When I opposed the importation of Sharia, however, the little ignoramus called my response "partisan" , the implication being that the opposition to the introduction of Sharia stems from some sort of partisan position -- one that she opposes.

Of course, she doesn't know the difference between sharia and jihad, so her knowledge of the world seems no more extensive than your own.

She knows the difference. You have misundestood her words....again. You don't seem capable of admitting when you are wrong. That is a RW trait. Why do you have it?

 

[Ravi]

It isn't even meant to be a legal system in Islamic countries but a spiritual path to follow.

.

Oh, my goodness.

Is your job here to throw out any truly idiotic nonsense that comes into your head as long as it supports Islam?

Obviously, sharia is not a legal system here, but there are those who advocate establishing it. When I opposed it's establishment, your puerile response was a bunch of your typical crap about my supposed "partisanship".

You are so thoroughly stuck in your adolescent acting-out phase that you simply oppose as a conditioned response.

Why did you edit out much of my post? Too cowardly to address it, I'm guessing.

Do a little research and you will discover that Sharia is exactly what I stated. That it is perverted in some cultures does not change that fact.

It cannot be law in the USA as religions are not allowed to dictate laws.

You are confusing sharia with jihad, you silly child.

But, hey -- don't let eighteen million five hundred thousand references get in your way of displaying the incredible extent of your ignorance, now, k?

Google

No, I'm not. And jihad is also a practice who's meaning is perverted by some Islamic groups.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

She knows the difference. You have misundestood her words....again. You don't seem capable of admitting when you are wrong. That is a RW trait. Why do you have it?

She most obviously doesn't.

Are you really so incredibly simple-minded as to think that this imagined trait of yours is reserved for the for "RW", though?

Grow up, child, and stop playing politics as if it is a game of cowboys and Indians.

No wonder you morons cannot understand concepts. All you know is that one group is called the good guys and the other group is called the bad guys.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She knows the difference. You have misundestood her words....again. You don't seem capable of admitting when you are wrong. That is a RW trait. Why do you have it?

She most obviously doesn't.

Are you really so incredibly simple-minded as to think that this imagined trait of yours trait is reserved for the for "RW", though?

Grow up, child, and stop playing politics as if it is a game of cowboys and Indians.

No wonder you morons cannot understand concepts. All you know is that one group is called the good guys and the other group is called the bad guys.

She clearly does. You are mistaken.

Your second sentence doesn't read well. But...I am certain that RW USMB posters are unable to admit mistakes. That is not debatable.

You...on the other hand...think ALL groups are the bad guys. Right? You are above the fray.....the adult in the room. I know. I know.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I'm not. And jihad is also a practice who's meaning is perverted by some Islamic groups.

Ah -- so eighteen million five hundred thousand references ISN'T enough.

Have you considered donating your skull to the defense department when you die? They are always looking for a material that is completely impenetrable.

 

[Ravi]

No, I'm not. And jihad is also a practice who's meaning is perverted by some Islamic groups.

Ah -- so eighteen million five hundred thousand references ISN'T enough.

Have you considered donating your skull to the defense department when you die? They are always looking for a material that is completely impenetrable.

18 million references from RWNJ sites that have brainwashed you with their dogma is worth nada.

 

[Coyote]

You accused Ravi of wanting to bring Sharia here. You suck at English....or you are frighteningly stupid.

What I actually said is that those who support the establishment of sharia family courts in the United States are supporting the importation of this legal system. This was in respose to Mac pointing out a thread in the CDZ where leftists were doing exactly that.

And you call ME stupid and unable to comprehend English, child?

No one here is supporting the "establishment of sharia family courts" - you either misunderstand what is going on or you're deliberately being an idiot. There are no COURTS being supported in any way.

Sharia councels (as in UK), or individual Imams (as I think it is in the US) - can engage in arbritation, rule on whether specific things or actions are sharia compliant, provide counsel or grant RELIGIOUS divorces, or RECOMMEND distribution of property and child custody arrangements. In order for any of those to have the force of law, they must be ratified by a SECULAR court. They operate in much the same way as rabbinical councels in applying Halakah to those who wish to use it. None of this is NEW in our country.

I'm sure you're going to find some way of twisting this, but at least we should start with the actual facts.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You accused Ravi of wanting to bring Sharia here. You suck at English....or you are frighteningly stupid.

What I actually said is that those who support the establishment of sharia family courts in the United States are supporting the importation of this legal system. This was in respose to Mac pointing out a thread in the CDZ where leftists were doing exactly that.

And you call ME stupid and unable to comprehend English, child?

No one here is supporting the "establishment of sharia family courts" - you either misunderstand what is going on or you're deliberately being an idiot. There are no COURTS being supported in any way.

Sharia councels (as in UK), or individual Imams (as I think it is in the US) - can engage in arbritation, rule on whether specific things or actions are sharia compliant, provide counsel or grant RELIGIOUS divorces, or RECOMMEND distribution of property and child custody arrangements. In order for any of those to have the force of law, they must be ratified by a SECULAR court. They operate in much the same way as rabbinical councels in applying Halakah to those who wish to use it. None of this is NEW in our country.

I'm sure you're going to find some way of twisting this, but at least we should start with the actual facts.

Sharia courts in Britain operate with the backing of U.K. law.

Your calling them "councils" as a slippery rhetorical ruse does not change the facts of the matter one bit. .

THIS is what you are actually supporting

http://www.bowgroup.org/sites/bowgr...ny Muslim women in Britain today 24 03 15.pdf

 

[Dogmaphobe]

18 million references from RWNJ sites that have brainwashed you with their dogma is worth nada.

So, the entirety of the internet is one, big "rwnj" site?

and nobody TOLD me?

 

[Norman]

She knows the difference. You have misundestood her words....again. You don't seem capable of admitting when you are wrong. That is a RW trait. Why do you have it?

She most obviously doesn't.

Are you really so incredibly simple-minded as to think that this imagined trait of yours trait is reserved for the for "RW", though?

Grow up, child, and stop playing politics as if it is a game of cowboys and Indians.

No wonder you morons cannot understand concepts. All you know is that one group is called the good guys and the other group is called the bad guys.

She clearly does. You are mistaken.

Your second sentence doesn't read well. But...I am certain that RW USMB posters are unable to admit mistakes. That is not debatable.

You...on the other hand...think ALL groups are the bad guys. Right? You are above the fray.....the adult in the room. I know. I know.

LWers are masters of projection. I am not sure whether to call me RWer but I admit mistakes all the time. That is something the LW can not allow as it's only based on rhetoric and verbal manipulation, not truth.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She knows the difference. You have misundestood her words....again. You don't seem capable of admitting when you are wrong. That is a RW trait. Why do you have it?

She most obviously doesn't.

Are you really so incredibly simple-minded as to think that this imagined trait of yours trait is reserved for the for "RW", though?

Grow up, child, and stop playing politics as if it is a game of cowboys and Indians.

No wonder you morons cannot understand concepts. All you know is that one group is called the good guys and the other group is called the bad guys.

She clearly does. You are mistaken.

Your second sentence doesn't read well. But...I am certain that RW USMB posters are unable to admit mistakes. That is not debatable.

You...on the other hand...think ALL groups are the bad guys. Right? You are above the fray.....the adult in the room. I know. I know.

LWers are masters of projection. I am not sure whether to call me RWer but I admit mistakes all the time. That is something the LW can not allow as it's only based on rhetoric and verbal manipulation, not truth.

Good for you. Maybe you can help some of your pals do the same.

 

[Coyote]

You accused Ravi of wanting to bring Sharia here. You suck at English....or you are frighteningly stupid.

What I actually said is that those who support the establishment of sharia family courts in the United States are supporting the importation of this legal system. This was in respose to Mac pointing out a thread in the CDZ where leftists were doing exactly that.

And you call ME stupid and unable to comprehend English, child?

No one here is supporting the "establishment of sharia family courts" - you either misunderstand what is going on or you're deliberately being an idiot. There are no COURTS being supported in any way.

Sharia councels (as in UK), or individual Imams (as I think it is in the US) - can engage in arbritation, rule on whether specific things or actions are sharia compliant, provide counsel or grant RELIGIOUS divorces, or RECOMMEND distribution of property and child custody arrangements. In order for any of those to have the force of law, they must be ratified by a SECULAR court. They operate in much the same way as rabbinical councels in applying Halakah to those who wish to use it. None of this is NEW in our country.

I'm sure you're going to find some way of twisting this, but at least we should start with the actual facts.

Sharia courts in Britain operate with the backing of U.K. law.

Your calling them "councils" as a slippery rhetorical ruse does not change the facts of the matter one bit. .

What do they actually do in Britain? I admit, I'm less familiar with Britain than the US, but the information is readily available, so lets look at the FACTS before proclaiming "slippery rhetorical ruses" and all the usual name calling.

According to Wikipedia: Islamic Sharia Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Islamic Sharia Council (ISC) is a London-based, quasi-Islamic court that provides legal rulings and advice to Muslims in accordance with its brand of Islamic Sharia based on the four Sunni schools of thought. It primarily handles cases of marriage and divorce and, to a lesser extent business and finance.[3] According to BBC News, thousands of Muslims have turned to the Council to resolve family and financial issues. The Council operates 16 tribunals in Britain, including in Birmingham, Bradford and London.[4] The Economist magazine states it has offered rulings to "thousands of troubled families since the 1980s",[5] the council states that it has dealt with an average of between 200 to 300 cases monthly as of January 2012.[6]


One authority holds that the council has no legal authority or jurisdiction in the United Kingdom,[3] and can not impose any penalties; many Muslims would appear voluntarily to accept the rulings made by the ISC.[6] Another report holds that Muslim tribunals exploit a legal loophole which allows sharia courts to be classified as arbitration courts, which allows their rulings to be binding in law.[4]


The Islamic Sharia Council says it is ‘devoted to the articulation of classical Islamic principles in a manner that provides a platform for Islam to be the cure of all humanity’s ills.’[7] According to The Economist magazine its "two main founders come from purist schools of Islam, the Deobandis and the Salafis".[5] A rival service, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, was founded in 2007 by followers of the Barelvi school of South Asian Islam, is reportedly "less strict than the Deobandis" and as of 2010 offered dispute resolution in half a dozen British cities.[5]​

According to: Dan Bell on sharia law - the use of Sharia Councils or Sharia "courts" - is, variable in the quality of the advice it gives or how liberally sharia is interpreted, and whether or not women are protected enough. Divorces clearly constitute the majority of their work.

Pros/Cons:

"In every situation our motto is: reconciliation first. So we try to reconcile, but in cases where a marriage was enforced on a girl against her wishes, against her own opinion, we don't want to negotiate. What we do is, we try to make their guardians, their parents, understand the Islamic position, and also we tell them what is the position of British law on marriage." Sayeed tells them that they "will also be guilty of [breaking] heavenly laws - that is how we try to convince the parents". Does it work? "Not all the time. We are human and working in human society. Not all the time; most of the time, yes."


But not all councils are as committed to liberal interpretations of sharia. Estimates of the number of mosques across the country range from 1,000 to 2,000. They serve a hugely diverse Muslim community - at 1.6 million people, Muslims are the largest religious minority in Britain. Each mosque has its own imams, some of whom are scholars like Sayeed, while others are simply devout Muslims fulfilling a need for religious guidance in their communities. The Islamic Sharia Council is one of the oldest and most respected, but it admits that there is no single body that can claim to be fully representative of all British Muslims.


Neither is there any regulation of imams, or any benchmark for the quality of advice that they give. Abdul Jalil Sajid, former secretary of the mosque and community affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, estimates that 35% of imams are unqualified. No one knows how many of them are operating in sharia councils, applying their own interpretations of Islamic law.


According to Cassandra Balchin, of Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), too many of them promote a highly conservative interpretation of sharia that overemphasises the rights of the husband. "They don't seem to recognise the multiple forms of divorce that are available to women," she says. "There are usually no women involved, whereas in a lot of Muslim countries you can have women judges involved in family courts."​

More complications:

Another major problem is bad advice over what exactly constitutes a valid marriage and divorce in the first place. The councils "seem to imply that their decisions would be valid in some other legal context", says Balchin, "but that, in fact, is not the case".


Islamic marriages and divorces conducted in Muslim countries such as Pakistan or Bangladesh are recognised as valid in the UK, but the British courts do not recognise Islamic ceremonies carried out in this country unless they are registered separately with the civil authorities. The result is that some Muslims think they are protected by family law when they are not, and others think they are properly divorced when, in fact, they are still married. In one case, Luton police contacted WLUML after pursuing a man for bigamy who had married in Luton, then flown to Pakistan and married again. After looking into the case, they found that the first marriage was invalid as it had been conducted by an imam in an unregistered mosque. His first wife was left with no legal protection by the family courts, and the husband was free to bring his second wife back to Britain as his legal spouse.​

Convoluted, confusing and legally messy, but it also points out the extreme difficulty of sorting out these matters and the lack of any kind of standard for those giving religious advice.

But do the Islamic Councils in Britain have the force of British secular law? There seems to be a lot of conflicting claims.

I think this article offers the most thoughtful analysis of the issue:

http://www.economist.com/node/17249634
Sharia in the West
Whose law counts most?

ANY Western politician, judge or religious leader desiring instant fame or a dose of controversy has an easy option. All you need do is say “sharia” in public.


Sharron Angle, a Republican candidate for the Senate, proved the point when she suggested that Frankford, Texas, and Dearborn, Michigan, were both subject to a sharia regime, as a result of the “militant terrorist situation” that existed in those places. Critics retorted that Frankford, after its absorption by Dallas, no longer existed as an administrative unit. Dearborn's mayor, Jack O'Reilly, tartly told her that his town's 60 churches and seven mosques were flourishing happily under American jurisdiction. But for some tea party fans, she was guilty at worst of slight exaggeration.


Less weirdly, but just as controversially, Archbishop Rowan Williams, leader of the world's 80m Anglicans, will never be allowed to forget saying in February 2008 that some accommodation between British law and sharia was “inevitable”. Lord Phillips, then England's senior judge, drew equal ire by adding that sharia-based mediation could have some role as long as national law held primacy.


IIt is easy to see why the word sharia has emotional overtones, especially today. The appalled reaction to the case of Sakineh Ashtiani, an Iranian woman who has been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, has stoked a global campaign for her acquittal. The sentence was suspended last month, but her fate looks dicey. She could still face execution on a murder charge.


Such cases reflect only one part of sharia: the system of corporal and capital punishments such as stoning for adultery, death for murder or apostasy (abandoning Islam), whipping for consuming intoxicants or the cutting off of a hand for theft. Muslims themselves disagree over how, if at all, these penalties should be practised in the modern world. Tariq Ramadan, a prominent European Muslim thinker, caused a furore in 2003 when he suggested that stoning and other physical punishments should be “suspended”. Hardline Islamists regarded that as backsliding. Nicolas Sarkozy (then the interior minister, now the president of France) pointed out that the formulation could imply a future resumption of physical punishment.


Horrifying as these punishments might be to modern sensibilities, there is no prospect of their exercise in any Western country. Muslims living in the West may (as has sometimes happened) take the “law” into their own hands by killing an apostate. But that counts as murder pure and simple.


Where sharia poses genuine dilemmas for secular countries with big Muslim minorities is not in the realm of retribution but in its application to family matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody. English-speaking countries boast a strong tradition of settling disputes (commercial or personal) by legally binding arbitration. This already includes non-secular institutions such as longstanding rabbinical tribunals in Britain and many other countries, or Christian mediation services in North America. Now Islam-based outfits are entering the market.


Perhaps inevitably, the procedures and general ethos of Muslim mediation are very different from those of a secular court. Many of Britain's 2m or so Muslims come from socially conservative parts of South Asia, such as rural Kashmir. The practice of sharia-based family law both reflects and to an extent mitigates that conservatism. A network of sharia councils—whose two main founders come from purist schools of Islam, the Deobandis and the Salafis—has offered rulings to thousands of troubled families since the 1980s. Much of their work involves women who have received civil divorces but need an Islamic one to remarry within their faith. The councils can overrule a husband's objections. Few would decry this. But the woman may well also forfeit her mahr (marriage settlement). Critics call that unfair. They also complain that, when faced with domestic violence, these councils merely administer a scolding or prescribe an “anger-management” course, rather than the safe house and prosecution that the state-run system should offer.


Still, British sharia arbitrators may alleviate a peculiarly British woe. Some Muslim Britons contract an Islamic marriage (but not a civil one) and then fail to confer on the bride the marriage settlement that would be obligatory in say, Pakistan. If the union sunders, such men then escape their obligations under both English law and Pakistani custom. The councils advise against such deviousness.


A rival set-up, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals, now offers dispute resolution in half a dozen British cities. Founded in 2007 by followers of the Barelvi school of South Asian Islam, they are less strict than the Deobandis. But when asked to divide up an intestate's assets, they follow Islamic law, giving daughters half as much as sons. The tribunals say they operate under the Arbitration Act of 1996. That makes rulings binding once both parties have given authority to the arbitrator.


In Canada legislation framed with secular arbitration in mind but used by religious courts is a hotter issue than in Britain. In 2003 a Toronto lawyer, Syed Mumtaz Ali, proclaimed an “Islamic Institute of Civil Justice” and urged Muslims to use it. The province of Ontario reacted in 2005 by stripping religious tribunals (including Jewish and Catholic ones) of legal force. It also stiffened rules on arbitrators' qualifications and record-keeping. Quebec tightened its law too.


That has not stopped devout Canadian Muslims from seeking religious guidance on family and personal matters. As Harvey Simmons, a York University professor, wrote last month: “Because religious arbitration now takes place mainly outside the scrutiny of the Ontario courts, there is no way to tell whether women are being treated well or badly by informal religious arbitration.”


In the United States both secular and religious arbitration are firmly established, operating under a Federal Arbitration Act that gives robust standing to the procedure but also allows the parties to counter-appeal to ordinary courts on certain grounds (though America's church-state separation stops courts hearing arguments about doctrine). Christian and Jewish arbitration is well-organised. The Muslim variety is lower-key and less formal, but so far not (barring outbursts from tea-partistas like Ms Angle) especially controversial.


So...are they Islamic courts? I still say no, a court implies a lot more than what they are doing.

Do they have the force of law? It appears that under Britain's Arbritation Act, the US' similar legislation, they do have some force of law.

Are there problems with it? Apparently, not the least of which is whether women are sufficiently protected or adequately advised and lack of any sort of "standard" or credentialing for those doing the advising.

Is there a need for it at all? That's a matter of opinion. If one is religious, the answer is yes. There is also a very complicated mess involving religious divorce vs secular divorce that needs to somehow be addressed. It's clear that the Catholic community and the Jewish community have similar issues though it's not complicated by poloygamy.

Can the system be fixed to work better? The article implied that something was done to do just that in the Jewish rabbinical councils to address divorce, so why not? In Britain, it looks extremely messy, inept and disorganized. Perhaps Canada's system is a better one, no force of law (which I like) implying that though that the religious divorce can be offered but they still must get a secular one or have it ratified by the secular court.

Last question: Let's say you make sharia illegal. Ok, how will you handle people seeking religious arbritration, divorces, advice etc? Do you apply it to ALL religious arbitration venus or just some?