Sharia Law in the UK?

[bridgy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm

:jaw-dropp

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks the UK should allow the adoption of Sharia Law alongside UK law, in order to reduce the alienation of Muslims. From the above article:

Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

This has sparked a massive response from the British media, and public and political reaction appears to be almost universally negative - with the exception of muslim spokesmen on news programmes!

The principles involved remind me of the row about laws on equality for homosexuals last year sparked by Catholics wanting exemption from anti discrimination laws on the basis of their religious faith - and no doubt part of the archbishop's agenda is for Christians to be able to opt out of laws they don't like too.

Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

Well allowing different religions to opt out of UK law for their own versions is far more dangerous and likely to cause or increase friction and mistrust between communities in my opinion.

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

No, that's exactly what we want! UK law is democratic. What he's talking about is democracy standing up against minority religious doctrine - thankfully it seems most British people still think this is a good idea!

Your thoughts?

[Dr Adequate]

I think I shall start a new religion in which bank robbery is considered a sacrament.

Believers will tithe directly to me as Supreme MegaPope of the First Church Of Kleptomania.

[mrbaracuda]

My thoughts are: Britland is going down the gutter day by day and I'm saddened to see this. I don't see how this will not further the [self imposed?!] alienation.

You know, some people are actually thinking about something like civil war will erupt at some point. And, I don't know. I don't like civil war in my EU.

[Madalch]

Wasn't that an album by some punk band?

[Rolfe]

It's possible he meant no more than that arrangements should be made to accommodate Moslem views on acceptable banking practices, or divorce law. But if so, he chose an absolutely bizarre form of words.

We already have far too much legal concession to religious doctrine in the allowing of animal slaughter methods which would get a non-Jew or non-Moslem jailed for "causing unnecessary suffering". If we go further down that road, where will we be? Corporal punishment for theft?

Rolfe.

[JoeEllison]

I just heard about this on NPR. There didn't seem to be anything especially crazy or wrong-headed about it. You'll note the utter lack of uproar about similar allowances made for the Jewish community, and the complete lack of devastation to the UKian way of life.

[UserGoogol]

I have no problem per se with instituting Sharia if it merely exists as a sort of glorified* arbitration court. The example of "Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court" seems fairly reasonable. The problem is merely if Sharia law can mix itself up with people who don't want to be ruled by Sharia, since then people's rights are quite likely to be infringed. Which could in fact be rather common, since a lot of actions that are legally regulated have actions which go beyond the direct parties in the legal case. But in principle, the idea of letting people pick and choose what sort of law they want to be governed by seems like an entirely just idea.

*Although in so far as it is "glorified," it should not be glorified in such a way as to promote or disparage Islam, since that would violate separation of church and state. And if other groups of people want to live by their own laws, they should be equally free to.

[ddt]

The article quotes Culture Secretary Andy Burnham:
"You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other," he said, adding this would be "chaos".
It's interesting to note that some 100-150 years ago, the Ottoman Empire actually did this - different laws for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Especially on the part of the Christians it was pressured to do this by the then superpowers - Britain and France. How times can change. :)

I think it's principally wrong to have different laws for different people. The law is there for everyone, and the law should be equal for everyone.

As to what parts of law the Archbishop thinks there should be differences:
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
Financial matters? Contract law? So, when I have a dispute with my Turkish butcher about the meat he sells me, should I go to a normal court or a Sharia court? This is absolutely ridiculous. Commerce thrives on clear-cut trading rules.

Marital disputes? Family law? He sees the problem the wrong way around. British law now has too much religiosity in family law. The fact that a church marriage is recognized by the state is ridiculous. Britain here has missed the great civilization that is called Napoleonic code, which insists on a secular marriage in front of the (local) government - and if you like to have a church marriage, that's your choice, but that's null and void for the (secular) law.

Besides the principled issue, different laws for different people do not serve for more integration of the various groups.

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.
Yes, so what? As long as it's not against criminal code, you may write anything in a contract you like. That's up to both parties of the contract.

He [Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation] added: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success.
Which ones???

My thoughts are: Britland is going down the gutter day by day and I'm saddened to see this. I don't see how this will not further the [self imposed?!] alienation.

You know, some people are actually thinking about something like civil war will erupt at some point. And, I don't know. I don't like civil war in my EU.
Having followed the antics of Mrs. T. with respect to the EU, and the ever lasting big discussions in Britain about its EU membership, I have regularly thought it would be best to kick them out.

[ddt]

I have no problem per se with instituting Sharia if it merely exists as a sort of glorified* arbitration court. The example of "Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court" seems fairly reasonable.
In the same sense as that, when I buy an internet domain-name, I agree to the ICANN arbitration procedures - I agree.

The problem is merely if Sharia law can mix itself up with people who don't want to be ruled by Sharia, since then people's rights are quite likely to be infringed. Which could in fact be rather common, since a lot of actions that are legally regulated have actions which go beyond the direct parties in the legal case.
For instance, the height of alimony can tie in with what Social Security has to pay the receiver of the alimony to let her/him have a minimum income. Family law should clearly spell out which parts of the law can not be trumped by what people themselves write into their contracts, i.c., prenups, wills, etc.

The same thing holds for labour laws and real estate lease laws - at least over here, they are heavily regulated with lots of rules that cannot be trumped by the contracts people write.

But in principle, the idea of letting people pick and choose what sort of law they want to be governed by seems like an entirely just idea.
Then they just have to spell it out in their contract, plain and simple.

[geni]

Financial matters? Contract law? So, when I have a dispute with my Turkish butcher about the meat he sells me, should I go to a normal court or a Sharia court? This is absolutely ridiculous. Commerce thrives on clear-cut trading rules.

As long as you both agree either would be an option.


Marital disputes? Family law? He sees the problem the wrong way around. British law now has too much religiosity in family law. The fact that a church marriage is recognized by the state is ridiculous.


Not really. Original common law marrage was mostly based on public statements. The idea of documenting stuff is purely a church idea and a church marrage is fairly public.


Britain here has missed the great civilization that is called Napoleonic code,


There are limits to how far the law should try and protect people from themselves. Napoleonic code based systems tend to go beyond that point.


which insists on a secular marriage in front of the (local) government - and if you like to have a church marriage, that's your choice, but that's null and void for the (secular) law.

The local goverment has better things to do. As long as the marrage is properly documented why is it any of the state's business as to who performs it?


Yes, so what? As long as it's not against criminal code, you may write anything in a contract you like. That's up to both parties of the contract.


There are exceptions to that even under common law. There are rather more exceptions under the Napoleonic code.


Having followed the antics of Mrs. T. with respect to the EU, and the ever lasting big discussions in Britain about its EU membership, I have regularly thought it would be best to kick them out.

The lack of anything to balance the franco-german axis would likey cause problems.

[Morrigan]

I just heard about this on NPR. There didn't seem to be anything especially crazy or wrong-headed about it. You'll note the utter lack of uproar about similar allowances made for the Jewish community, and the complete lack of devastation to the UKian way of life.

Jews aren't as scary, though.

[pomeroo]

I just heard about this on NPR. There didn't seem to be anything especially crazy or wrong-headed about it. You'll note the utter lack of uproar about similar allowances made for the Jewish community, and the complete lack of devastation to the UKian way of life.


If Western civilization falls, the cause will not be Islamofascist barbarians who demand that technologically-advanced societies be governed by Shar'ia: the cause will be muddle-headed liberals who see nothing wrong with the demand.

[a_unique_person]

I think I shall start a new religion in which bank robbery is considered a sacrament.

Believers will tithe directly to me as Supreme MegaPope of the First Church Of Kleptomania.

The proposed change is only about civil matters, not criminal.

[a_unique_person]

If Western civilization falls, the cause will not be Islamofascist barbarians who demand that technologically-advanced societies be governed by Shar'ia: the cause will be muddle-headed liberals who see nothing wrong with the demand.

If that was what they were after, I would agree.

[JoeEllison]

If Western civilization falls, the cause will not be Islamofascist barbarians who demand that technologically-advanced societies be governed by Shar'ia: the cause will be muddle-headed liberals who see nothing wrong with the demand.

It is a good thing that everything you posted only exists in your paranoid delusions, isn't it? If reality were half as scary as your weird little fantasies, we might actually have something to worry about!

[JoeEllison]

The proposed change is only about civil matters, not criminal.

Basically, all they are talking about is binding arbitration, isn't it?

[WildCat]

similar allowances made for the Jewish community
Such as...?

[pomeroo]

It is a good thing that everything you posted only exists in your paranoid delusions, isn't it? If reality were half as scary as your weird little fantasies, we might actually have something to worry about!


Yeah, as always, you stand on firm ground. When will you be informing the families of the three thousand victims of the jihadists that their loved ones are still alive? They will be deliriously happy to know that the incident was merely the figment of a paranoid conservative's imagination.

Nah, we don't actually have something to worry about. Reality is nothing that can't be handled by telling more lies about George Bush.

[quixotecoyote]

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....

fanatic suicide bombers killing thousands...

Do you really not see the difference?

[WildCat]

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....
And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?

Frankly, I don't think there should be the "choice".

And I'd really like to see examples about how this is allegedly also done for Orthodox Jews.

[JoeEllison]

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....

fanatic suicide bombers killing thousands...

Do you really not see the difference?

It all looks the same to some people... bigotry is a nasty goddamned thing, isn't it?:(

[a_unique_person]

Such as...?

Some Jewish communities observe their own relgigious legal institutions/laws, and are permitted to use these for some civil, legal matters. I have no more problem with that than this, if that is what those people want.

[a_unique_person]

And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?


Bullying someone into agreeing to a legally binding contract is against the criminal law (IANAL). If that were to happen, I would expect those women to go to the criminal system.

[pomeroo]

It all looks the same to some people... bigotry is a nasty goddamned thing, isn't it?:(


Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

[a_unique_person]

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

If they do that for everyone, which they do, it's a problem. If they decide they don't want gays getting married, and only apply that law to themselves, that's fine by me. If you're a gay evengelical, then it's up to you to sort out what you think should happen.

[quixotecoyote]

And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?

Frankly, I don't think there should be the "choice".


I hedge towards being against it for that reason, but that's a world apart from the insanity pomeroo was trying to pawn off.

I'm ambivalent because if UK law is anyting like US law, you can already do a pretty decent imitation contractually, through pre-nuptials, and the like. This doesn't seem like it would do much more than simplify the process.

Plus, saying, "You aren't really a consenting adult, you just say you are, therefore we can protectively legislate regarding you" is problematic on several levels.

[mrbaracuda]

It's possible he meant no more than that arrangements should be made to accommodate Moslem[ view]s

You can stop there I think. :rolleyes:

[portlandatheist]

I'm sure there are some pseudo-liberals out there that would embrace abandoning the notion of universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism where the principles of equal rights and self determination would only apply to the "west" and we should allow room for Muslims to practice misogyny, racism, anti homosexual philosophy, female genital mutilation, fascism, etc. and that "we" should be accommodating to such beliefs.
Fortunately, most liberals are much wiser than embracing such a backwards non liberal philosophy as Sharia law.

I don't understand the notion of "gee, it would be just terrible for 'us' to discriminate against gays but I have no problem if 'they' want to discriminate against gays" In fact, the whole notion of "us" and "them" is poisonous politics. People living in the same land and same government need to live under the same rules, Muslim, Christians, and atheists alike. Identity politics based on religion or race is a recipe for disaster. Same rules for everybody, deal with it.

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm ambivalent because if UK law is anyting like US law, you can already do a pretty decent imitation contractually, through pre-nuptials, and the like. This doesn't seem like it would do much more than simplify the process.

Plus, saying, "You aren't really a consenting adult, you just say you are, therefore we can protectively legislate regarding you" is problematic on several levels.

It is very common these days in UK contracts to have a clause regarding what will happen if there is a contractual dispute (usually something like accepting arbitration by a QC) and most of the time the courts will accept that this is binding on the parties involved. The reason why I say "most of the time" is that there is a little niggle in this and that is that the law as it currently stands means that such arbitration does not have to be in accordance with UK law; so you can in fact use such a clause to try and circumvent statutory rights, apply penalties that would not be legal in UK law and so on. However some such clauses have been successfully challenged in a court on the grounds that they are not in accordance with UK laws and remove rights we are "guaranteed".

Just as a FYI - prenuptial agreements are not legally binding contracts over here since marriage and divorce are dictated by law - although such agreements may be considered by a court if the divorce ever gets to the court stage.

____________

More general points - first of all I am not in one way surprised by Canterbury's remarks (after all to him religion should determine what society is meant to be), what I am surprised about is that he is wanting to promote a non-Anglican faith, rather remiss of him!

By the way has any one got any up-to-date polls of how many British people who are Muslim would want Sharia law to apply to them?

Regarding other religious groups already having their own "law", probably the best known in the UK would be the Jewish "Beth Din", this is the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia based court and exists because many Jews do not believe that secular courts have authority over them and it is a religious obligation and in England at least (don't know about NI and the other legal systems) if both parties agree to be bound by such a court the result is legally binding. (Interestingly last year there was a very good Radio 4 programme that discussed the ramifications of such a court and the problems it caused for women when their husbands would not allow(!) a divorce which is apparently a requirement.)

Personally I think we should not be looking to extend religion in our legal system but it is already in place in some areas and has been for a long time so I do think there is more than a whiff of anti-Muslim in much of what is being reported about this story.

[Corsair 115]

For what it's worth, the issue of using Shariah law in civil matters for those of the Muslim faith came up in Ontario several years back. A panel had studied the issue and recommended Sharia law options be implemented.

The provincial government eventually rejected the idea, bascially saying that there would only be one set of civil laws for everyone in the province. (The fact that the issue was politically a loser for the government and would have cost it votes no doubt had much to do with the decision.)

CBC News story about the rejection of Sharia law here: Ontario Premier rejects use of Shariah law (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html)

[kosai]

I'm sure there are some pseudo-liberals out there that would embrace abandoning the notion of universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism where the principles of equal rights and self determination would only apply to the "west" and we should allow room for Muslims to practice misogyny, racism, anti homosexual philosophy, female genital mutilation, fascism, etc. and that "we" should be accommodating to such beliefs.
Fortunately, most liberals are much wiser than embracing such a backwards non liberal philosophy as Sharia law.

I don't understand the notion of "gee, it would be just terrible for 'us' to discriminate against gays but I have no problem if 'they' want to discriminate against gays" In fact, the whole notion of "us" and "them" is poisonous politics. People living in the same land and same government need to live under the same rules, Muslim, Christians, and atheists alike. Identity politics based on religion or race is a recipe for disaster. Same rules for everybody, deal with it.

Thank Allah someone gets it. I can't believe you other "liberals" would buy into this crap just for the sake of making everyone feel warm and welcome. I also can't believe the left here is represented with a comment as misguided as...

"I would like to meet as many Americans as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an Iraqi looks like before they kill him."-- Fadhil Al-Kazily, Iraqi-American peace activist

If we were to take the reverse of that statement would you consider it a relavent quote to use as your signature?

"I would like to meet as many Muslims as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an American looks like before they fly a fully loaded 747 into my place of employment."

Unless you are using such a lame quote in a joking manner, in which case I apologize. I'm a democrat but this kind of logic makes us all look really bad.

[Dragon]

Here's a link to the speech in full from the Archbish's site (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575) - Haven't read it all yet.

[Par]

If they do that for everyone, which they do, it's a problem. If they decide they don't want gays getting married, and only apply that law to themselves, that's fine by me. If you're a gay evengelical, then it's up to you to sort out what you think should happen.


Well, what you’re describing there isn’t law. Rather, it’s simply personal choice. If such people don’t wish to engage in homosexual behavior, then of course they are free to choose not to. No reform of the legal system is necessary.

[a_unique_person]

Thank Allah someone gets it. I can't believe you other "liberals" would buy into this crap just for the sake of making everyone feel warm and welcome. I also can't believe the left here is represented with a comment as misguided as...

"I would like to meet as many Americans as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an Iraqi looks like before they kill him."-- Fadhil Al-Kazily, Iraqi-American peace activist

If we were to take the reverse of that statement would you consider it a relavent quote to use as your signature?

"I would like to meet as many Muslims as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an American looks like before they fly a fully loaded 747 into my place of employment."

Unless you are using such a lame quote in a joking manner, in which case I apologize. I'm a democrat but this kind of logic makes us all look really bad.

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

[Cainkane1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm

:jaw-dropp

Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks the UK should allow the adoption of Sharia Law alongside UK law, in order to reduce the alienation of Muslims. From the above article:



This has sparked a massive response from the British media, and public and political reaction appears to be almost universally negative - with the exception of muslim spokesmen on news programmes!

The principles involved remind me of the row about laws on equality for homosexuals last year sparked by Catholics wanting exemption from anti discrimination laws on the basis of their religious faith - and no doubt part of the archbishop's agenda is for Christians to be able to opt out of laws they don't like too.



Well allowing different religions to opt out of UK law for their own versions is far more dangerous and likely to cause or increase friction and mistrust between communities in my opinion.



No, that's exactly what we want! UK law is democratic. What he's talking about is democracy standing up against minority religious doctrine - thankfully it seems most British people still think this is a good idea!

Your thoughts?
I have only this to say. The free world needs to limit or halt the immigration of these savages into a free society.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have only this to say. The free world needs to limit or halt the immigration of these savages into a free society.

I wasn't aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was intending to immigrate anywhere.

[kosai]

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

[Nogbad]

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.


You clearly haven't read some of the stuff in the conspiracy threads :D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

How it can be beneficial - alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (and that is what we are talking about here) tend to be much cheaper and much quicker than pursuing a legal claim.

Served in already existing contracts? Possibly not, as the wording would need to be included in the contract when signed. Could be done by way of amendment though. If you mean served within existing contract law, absolutely. That appears to be all that is proposed.

There are already a multitude of alternative dispute resolution systems operating in the UK. This seems not to have led to the end of the legal system.

[Darat]

I wasn't aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was intending to immigrate anywhere.

And whilst he may be known for being an intellectual Christian I doubt any one could ever describe him as "savage", his criticisms make Geoffrey Howe seem like a rabid doberman!

[ravdin]

The British people have a long and distinguished history. Their laws and traditions are worth preserving and defending... in Britain.

If you don't like British laws, there's no need to emigrate there. There are plenty of places you can live under Sharia law if that is your preference.

[Beerina]

Can't we have Shakira Law (http://www.shakiragallery.com/pictures/details/84972) instead?

Even Muslims would have to admit that would be a much better god to follow.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The British people have a long and distinguished history. Their laws and traditions are worth preserving and defending... in Britain.

If you don't like British laws, there's no need to emigrate there. There are plenty of places you can live under Sharia law if that is your preference.

Fortunately, nobody has suggested they won't be living under British law if they move here, so your concern is misplaced.

[SteveGrenard]

All fine and dandy that the suggestion for Sharia law in Britain be limited to "civil" matters and not criminal ones. But there are gray areas involving religious practices and family
law/situations covered in Sharia that are not criminal matters and not civil either.

I would like to know if violations such as blasphemy, apostasy, practicing other religions, or practicing no religion will be included. Under family law I would like to know how such things as adultery, premarital sex, clothing requirements for women, marrying without parent's approval, etc will be covered. Will these potentially capital crimes be included under civil or criminal law and will British Sharia have jurisdiction?

I wonder if the head of the Anglican Church stopped to realize that Sharia could forbid the practice of his own faith by a convert for example.

[ravdin]

Fortunately, nobody has suggested they won't be living under British law if they move here, so your concern is misplaced.

If that's true, then I agree the concern is misplaced. But why is there a push for Sharia law in Britain, then? If there's no conflict with British law, then no one is stopping you from voluntarily practicing a more restrictive system today.

Of course, if the people around you (native and non-native Brits) choose not to dress a certain way or abstain from certain foods, that's your hard luck if it offends you. I certainly hope it will stay that way.

[Beerina]

This demonstrates why religious laws are pointless.

They would only apply to people who believe that religion -- yet anyone can opt out of any religion they like, at any time, for any reason. Hence any "punishment" would be voluntary, too.

[Darat]

If that's true, then I agree the concern is misplaced. But why is there a push for Sharia law in Britain, then? If there's no conflict with British law, then no one is stopping you from voluntarily practicing a more restrictive system today.

...snip...

Undoubtedly there are some British folk "pushing" for Sharia law but there is no evidence that there are significant number of people doing so. I've asked in one of these threads does any have any data from polls etc.. about the number of British folk who are Muslim that do want Sharia law to be implemented.

[Darat]

...snip...

I would like to know if violations such as blasphemy, apostasy, practicing other religions, or practicing no religion will be included. Under family law I would like to know how such things as adultery, premarital sex, clothing requirements for women, marrying without parent's approval, etc will be covered. Will these potentially capital crimes be included under civil or criminal law and will British Sharia have jurisdiction?

...snip... Read his speech and you will see he addresses such points.

[Ziggurat]

Undoubtedly there are some British folk "pushing" for Sharia law but there is no evidence that there are significant number of people doing so.

Probably because nobody's tried to figure that out. But the people who want it are also exactly the sort of people to make themselves heard, and to intimidate other members of their community who might feel otherwise to remain silent.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/ProtestNAT0802_468x353.jpg
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unav oidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do

Tory cohesion spokesman Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.

"But let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

[dudalb]

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.


That is what gets me about Joe and his ilk. They give Militant Islam a pass for varous reason I won't go into,but violenlly condemn Jews and Christians for the exact same thing.

[Big Les]

I posted the context for this comment in the other multi-pager;

It is uncomfortably true that this introduces into our thinking about law what some would see as a 'market' element, a competition for loyalty as Shachar admits. But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of diverse and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.

Not quite as sensational as reported, but still utterly wrong in my own humble opinion.

[Dr Adequate]

Paxman on Newsnight ...

"How do you solve a problem like shari'a?"

Heh.

The hills are alive with the sound of muezzins ...

Fatwas on kaffirs and burqas on women ...

[SteveGrenard]

Read his speech and you will see he addresses such points.

I went to the BBC website of the story in the OP and found that I could NOT read his speech, only watch and listen to it. I would much rather do as you recommend and read it and have it in writing.

Do you happen to know a website where a written version might be placed? If I missed
a reference to a written version somewhere else I apologize.

Thanks

[kosai]

Undoubtedly there are some British folk "pushing" for Sharia law but there is no evidence that there are significant number of people doing so. I've asked in one of these threads does any have any data from polls etc.. about the number of British folk who are Muslim that do want Sharia law to be implemented.

From the article:

She told BBC News: "Many Muslim commentators and the media are wrongly assuming that all Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

"Various polls have so far indicated that around 40% want Sharia law. Although this is a significant percentage, why ignore the views of the other 60%?"

Was there some reason to doubt those numbers?

I would consider 40% quite significant if it's true.

[pomeroo]

The British philosopher Jamie Whyte, born in New Zealand and now residing in London, makes some pertinent observations in his highly entertaining book Crimes Against Logic (McGraw-Hill 2005):

"The desire to avoid ideological debate can lead to even worse crimes than begging the question. Often the result is total incoherence. Consider, for example, the current debate with Islamic fundamentalism. Most Western politicians reject Islamic theocracy and sharia law. They have their various grounds for disapproval: it is insufficiently democratic, sharia law fails to protect women's rights, and so on. These may be good objections, but they suffice for the rejection of Islamic theocracy only if the basic religious beliefs of Islamic fundamentalists are wrong. If Allah really does demand sharia law, as the fundamentalists claim, then we should all adopt it as soon as possible. Despotism and sexism are well worth it if they will save us from the everlasting flames of hell."

"Of course, most Western politicians do reject this Islamic idea about Allah's will. But they won't say so in public. When arguing against sharia law they never point out that Allah does not really exist and so can't really have insisted on any form of law, sharia included. On the contrary, most who engage in the debate will spend quite some time professing to have enormous respect for Islam. But if they do respect Islam why will they not adhere to its political prescriptions?"

"Perhaps I misunderstand what politicians mean by "respect." Perhaps you can respect a religion whose basic tenets you think false and whose political ideology you believe to be despotic and sexist. Even so, you must admit that it is a little confusing, when rejecting Islamic theocracy, to focus on your respect for Islam rather than your belief that its basic ideas are false."

I would take a slight exception to Whyte's otherwise spot-on analysis. If somehow compelled to think, most American politicians would eventually come around to the position that Allah is actually the God of the Old and New Testaments. The problem with Islam is that God did not speak to a man named Mohammed. But, we are still left with Whyte's objections to "respecting" a belief system that we regard as wrong.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Could we calm down for a minute here? From what I understand, religious institutions in England and Canada actually are given the power to implement and enforce their own laws. The governments see it as a way to free up the courts in matters that concern religion, such as marriage and divorce.

All this clergyman seems to have been saying is that if Orthodox Jews, Christians and other religious institutions are granted these privileges, why not Muslims, too?

It's a tough issue because, yeah, the Sharia is a lot different than the Talmund and whatever laws Christian institutions implement. No, it shouldn't be even considered if it means having a thief's hand cut off and all the rest but if all they want is handling contracts and so on, sure.

[SteveGrenard]

Could we calm down for a minute here? From what I understand, religious institutions in England and Canada actually are given the power to implement and enforce their own laws. The governments see it as a way to free up the courts in matters that concern religion, such as marriage and divorce.

I would like to calm down and will reserve final judgement for myself when I am able to read the Archbishop's remarks. In the meantime bear in mind that under Sharia the following issues and sanctions attached thereto are considered somewhat extreme if not anachronistic by modern standards:

Religion

Blasphemy - punishable by prison including and up to death
Apostasy - punishable by incarceration and up to the death penalty
Forced Conversion - death to non-believers
Naming Teddy Bears Muhammad - prison and the lash (var of blasphemy?)

Family Law/Marriage-Divorce-

Adultery - punishable by death if comitted by the woman
Marriage without parental permission - punishable by death
Divorce - various depending on circumstance, usually in favor of the man
Dress code - violations punishable by various means including the lash and up to
and including death



All this clergyman seems to have been saying is that if Orthodox Jews, Christians and other religious institutions are granted these privileges, why not Muslims, too?

This is not any old clergyman. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wonder how his boss, the Queen, feels about his recommendations.

I am not familiar with any widespread Orthodox Jewish or Christian faiths that call
for corporal punishment up to and including death for the above infractions or violations
of either religious or family law, at least not in the UK or the U.S. So we need to understand what the sanctions or punishments under a British Sharia court would be for these sorts of violations.

It's a tough issue because, yeah, the Sharia is a lot different than the Talmund and whatever laws Christian institutions implement. No, it shouldn't be even considered if it means having a thief's hand cut off and all the rest but if all they want is handling contracts and so on, sure.

No doubt the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish and Christian bodies of law have also called for these barbaric responses hundreds if not thousands of years ago but not today.

The problem with Islam and the Sharia is that they have not embraced any modern standards and instead hold onto these ancient or historical responses.

[a_unique_person]

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

I don't see the point in it either. I wouldn't want either or them, but that's me. These people do want it, and if it's voluntary, what's the problem?

[portlandatheist]

I don't see the point in it either. I wouldn't want either or them, but that's me. These people do want it, and if it's voluntary, what's the problem?
Because Muslims, just like all other human beings, have rights. They shouldn't be beaten, imprisoned, or killed for offenses that wider society deems the punishment overly excessive and unacceptable. Should we allow the institution of slavery if it was "voluntary" or should we reject it outright as we do now?
Furthermore, it obscures the meaning of the law of the land and would create a very divisive atmosphere between pro Sharia law Muslims, anti Sharia law Muslims, and wider society. In short, it would create a lot of unnecessary conflict and tension.

[Darat]

I went to the BBC website of the story in the OP and found that I could NOT read his speech, only watch and listen to it. I would much rather do as you recommend and read it and have it in writing.

Do you happen to know a website where a written version might be placed? If I missed
a reference to a written version somewhere else I apologize.

Thanks

See: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

[Darat]

From the article:

She told BBC News: "Many Muslim commentators and the media are wrongly assuming that all Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

"Various polls have so far indicated that around 40% want Sharia law. Although this is a significant percentage, why ignore the views of the other 60%?"

Was there some reason to doubt those numbers?

I would consider 40% quite significant if it's true.

That would be 40% of less than 3% of the UK population so at most a percent or two.

[Darat]

I would like to calm down and will reserve final judgement for myself when I am able to read the Archbishop's remarks. In the meantime bear in mind that under Sharia the following issues and sanctions attached thereto are considered somewhat extreme if not anachronistic by modern standards:

Religion

Blasphemy - punishable by prison including and up to death
Apostasy - punishable by incarceration and up to the death penalty
Forced Conversion - death to non-believers
Naming Teddy Bears Muhammad - prison and the lash (var of blasphemy?)

Family Law/Marriage-Divorce-

Adultery - punishable by death if comitted by the woman
Marriage without parental permission - punishable by death
Divorce - various depending on circumstance, usually in favor of the man
Dress code - violations punishable by various means including the lash and up to
and including death

...snip...

Only under some forms of Sharia not others. "Sharia" refers to whole set of different interpretations of what "Sharia Law" means. It's akin to making a statement that says "Western law allows the death penalty" - whilst in a sense correct (since some "western" legal systems do) it is rather misleading.




This is not any old clergyman. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wonder how his boss, the Queen, feels about his recommendations.

...snip...

She is not his boss.

[Darat]

Because Muslims, just like all other human beings, have rights. They shouldn't be beaten, imprisoned, or killed for offenses that wider society deems the punishment overly excessive and unacceptable. Should we allow the institution of slavery if it was "voluntary" or should we reject it outright as we do now?
Furthermore, it obscures the meaning of the law of the land and would create a very divisive atmosphere between pro Sharia law Muslims, anti Sharia law Muslims, and wider society. In short, it would create a lot of unnecessary conflict and tension.


But he was not arguing for nor said anything remotely like that.

[SteveGrenard]

See: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

Thank you.

[Wildy]

It's interesting to note that some 100-150 years ago, the Ottoman Empire actually did this - different laws for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Especially on the part of the Christians it was pressured to do this by the then superpowers - Britain and France. How times can change. :)

Well the Millet system did deal with certain problems, however the problem that you would face in Britain is where the Sharia court stops and the secular court starts. The Millet system dealt with problems between the Millets in a few rather good ways. Disputes between two parties of different Millets were settled by the Millet of the injured party and any dispute involving a Muslim was automatically dealt with by the Islamic Courts.

The Millet system would have worked fine because it also allowed the Millets a reasonable degree of autonomy. I don't know how many British people would want what is basically an autonomous Muslim state in Britain.

As well as that the Millet system seems to work best when you don't have a great separation of Church and State. The system that is used in Egypt for example bases family law on religion. They even have legislation that deals with issues of people of differing religions for things like divorce.

Now how would you be able to sort out divorce proceedings against a couple of differing religions? If the man is a Muslim should the Sharia court decide the divorce or should a secular court decide? Not even a beth din in Britain would have as much power as a Sharia court would have.

Unless you were to limit the power of the Sharia court so it was more in line with other religious courts in the country.

[tkingdoll]

I think it's important to look at the Archbish's potential motives for saying this. It's the case that the Anglican church wants to opt out of certain laws, for example gay adoption. Trying to pave the way for Sharia law would give them a huge amount of leverage when asking for exemptions or alternative laws based on their own faith. I think that has a lot to do with his comments.

In 2004 a Guardian poll of 500 British Muslims had 61% wanting Sharia law. I doubt there's an accurate figure, it's a bit of a silly question. I doubt many or any British Muslims want ALL of sharia law, for example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,,1362591,00.html

The Jewish comparison is a bit of a red herring, because there are only around 250,000 Jews in the UK and the number is getting smaller by the year. The reverse is true for Muslims.

However, it is true that, for example, Jews are allowed to get married at the location of their choosing, but no-one else is. My personal opinion is, rather than say "oh, one religious group has special rules, so another should get special rules", it would be better to say "no special rules for any religious group, and all existing rules on religious grounds are now repealed". However, that's not going to happen. I think the fairest compromise would be to level the playing field. So rather than just Jews being allowed to marry at any location, let any British citizen marry at any location. If Jews and Muslims are allowed to be cruel to animals, every abattoir should be allowed to be. And it would then become very clear very quickly which rules are right and which are wrong (getting married at the location of your choosing would be popular, being cruel to animals would not). So you then repeal laws based on what is considered right by all of society, which is how the system is supposed to work.

There are already Sharia 'courts' in the UK which deal with many civil and domestic matters.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I am not familiar with any widespread Orthodox Jewish or Christian faiths that call for corporal punishment up to and including death for the above infractions or violations of either religious or family law, at least not in the UK or the U.S. So we need to understand what the sanctions or punishments under a British Sharia court would be for these sorts of violations.

No doubt the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish and Christian bodies of law have also called for these barbaric responses hundreds if not thousands of years ago but not today.

The problem with Islam and the Sharia is that they have not embraced any modern standards and instead hold onto these ancient or historical responses.

I agree with you- the difference between allowing Christians and Jewish bodies of law to regulate and govern their own community and implementing Sharia is that- as bloody a past as all of these faiths have - the first two have reformed over the years and since the Middle Ages are no longer in the practise of actually killing people.

Where it's compatible with civil law, though, I have little objection to Sharia. After all. it also concerns areas of life such as banking, contracts, etc., so it's not all hellfire and brimstone.

[SteveGrenard]

It's the case that the Anglican church wants to opt out of certain laws, for example gay adoption. Trying to pave the way for Sharia law would give them a huge amount of leverage when asking for exemptions or alternative laws based on their own faith. I think that has a lot to do with his comments.


Since you brought up the subject of homosexuality what do you think a British Sharia court's position would be on openly gay members of Islam? And while treading this line how would they deal with allowing for polygamous heterosexual unions? Would Moslems be allowed to take more than one wife under the same conditions they could do so back in Saudi Arabia for example? And how would the court handle abortion or out of wedlock births? By executing the mother?

I read the Archbishop's comments on this and I agree he is not calling for a court that operates with the same sorts of punishments we have seen in other countries, especially mostly Moslem ruled countries but the big question is whether he is being naive by giving them the proverbial inch as the old adage goes?

Besides business law and business contracts I understood that such a court in Britain would also deal with both family and religious law; both these sectors, in other countries, often carry excessive barbaric sanctions for violators such as apostates and blasphemers.

[ravdin]

Since you brought up the subject of homosexuality what do you think a British Sharia court's position would be on openly gay members of Islam? And while treading this line how would they deal with allowing for polygamous heterosexual unions? Would Moslems be allowed to take more than one wife under the same conditions they could do so back in Saudi Arabia for example? And how would the court handle abortion or out of wedlock births? By executing the mother?

I read the Archbishop's comments on this and I agree he is not calling for a court that operates with the same sorts of punishments we have seen in other countries, especially mostly Moslem ruled countries but the big question is whether he is being naive by giving them the proverbial inch as the old adage goes?

Besides business law and business contracts I understood that such a court in Britain would also deal with both family and religious law; both these sectors, in other countries, often carry excessive barbaric sanctions for violators such as apostates and blasphemers.

My thought on that is if you're openly gay or a blasphemer, then the Muslims have every right to kick you out of their private club*. Or you can recant or repent so they'll let you back in. So long as the guidelines are within civil law, then I have no problem with leaving what you're willing to tolerate from your religious authorities up to the individual.

*Since IMHO it's a crappy club, it doesn't seem like such a severe punishment to me.

[a_unique_person]

Because Muslims, just like all other human beings, have rights. They shouldn't be beaten, imprisoned, or killed for offenses that wider society deems the punishment overly excessive and unacceptable. Should we allow the institution of slavery if it was "voluntary" or should we reject it outright as we do now?
Furthermore, it obscures the meaning of the law of the land and would create a very divisive atmosphere between pro Sharia law Muslims, anti Sharia law Muslims, and wider society. In short, it would create a lot of unnecessary conflict and tension.

That wasn't what was being put forward, and I wouldn't support the option you are presenting if it was. This is only to deal with civil matters. No punishments will be handed out.

[tkingdoll]

Re: Multiple wives. The UK legally recognises multiple wives as long as the people involved got married in a country where polygamy is legal. But it's extremely unlikely that UK law will ever be changed to allow for polygamous marriages here.

[SteveGrenard]

Things appear to be heating up where it counts for the Archbishop.



London (PTI): The head of the Anglican church is facing a crisis of confidence in his leadership and calls for his resignation on Saturday after he suggested adoption of some aspects of Islamic Sharia law in Britain.

Facing a barrage of criticism and call to quit, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams hastily backtracked, claiming he had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims.

But the Archbishop's moral authority, already undermined by the dispute over homosexuality, looked further in jeopardy as prelates from overseas provinces of the Anglican Communion joined in the criticism from members of the General Synod of the Church of England.

Williams in an interview said: "It seems inevitable that elements of the Muslim law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British legislation."

Lord Carey, his predecessor and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, also challenged his view.

While Prince Charles, Britain's foremost champion of good relations with Islam has distanced himself from the Archbishop's views, privately, he is concerned that the speech is in danger of being taken out of context and distilled into scaremongering headlines, The Times reported on Saturday.

Criticising Williams, Alison Ruoff, a Synod member for London and a member of the Bishop of London's diocesan council, said: "He has done the Anglican Communion and the Church of England no favours. He should go."

The timing of the Archbishop's call for a "supplementary jurisdiction" of Sharia for aspects of marital and financial law and for mediation and conflict resolution could not have been worse. It has come as the Synod prepares to meet at Westminster on Monday.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200802091862.htm

[gtc]

The Archbishop's proposals sounds like the sort of arbitration that was part of a subject called Alternative Dispute Resolution when I (briefly) studied law ten years ago.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with two parties agreeing to be bound by the ruling of a third party outside the traditional legal system and it can be cheaper than traditional law (which is why it gets up the noses of many lawyers). Particularly if the scope of judgements is restricted.

However, introducing the option of sharia should be part of broader reform that allows anyone to go to an approved arbitrator and that includes safeguards for those who use the schemes. I don't think that the scheme should be about introducing sharia per-se.

I can think of issues where the party who would be disadvantaged under a particular form of arbitration tries to renounce their acceptance of arbitration. This could be particularly tricky with family law and child access agreements. Does the UK recognise pre-nuptial agreements and does it allow people to specify the sort of access agreements that would occur if the marriage ended?

The way the Archbishop approached the issue is very odd and seems to be damaging the chances that British law will recognise alternative forms of arbitration. This is a pity; as a non-muslim he could have made a good leader on this issue as there would be less opportunity to use the 'thin edge of the wedge' argument about Muslims wanting to start stoning women in English streets*.

*That said, I suspect that many tabloid readers would support chopping the hands off robbers (can I call it a Saudi-ASBO?).

[richardm]

But in principle, the idea of letting people pick and choose what sort of law they want to be governed by seems like an entirely just idea.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the object of having laws, though?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The way the Archbishop approached the issue is very odd and seems to be damaging the chances that British law will recognise alternative forms of arbitration.

Except of course that there already are numerous alternative forms of arbitration operating in the UK.

And what is this "British law" of which you speak?

[Wildy]

It's probably the imaginary British law, as opposed to English Law, Scots Law or Northern Ireland Law.

In reality I think he means Common Law.

[gtc]

Actually, I did type British law when I should have said English law (unless I was just cleverly coining a term for the law in England and Scotlandand Northern Ireland).

The point of mine you quote was about the damage he seems to be doing to the acceptance of arbitration. Instead of being seen as a process that is more acceptable to the parties involved, the press coverage and commentary is portraying it as an end to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The point of mine you quote was about the damage he seems to be doing to the acceptance of arbitration. Instead of being seen as a process that is more acceptable to the parties involved, the press coverage and commentary is portraying it as an end to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

I doubt that either the press or those who start foaming at the mouth as soon as they read the press are aware that there is arbitration taking place, understand what the Archbishop was actually talking about (as opposed to the distorted nonsense screaming from the headlines) or have the intelligence to put the two together.

[Big Les]

I'm afraid he, or an adviser, really should have seen this coming. At the end of the day, context notwithstanding, he did state that he thought the adoption of (aspects of) Sharia law was inevitable.

The press have been simplifying things to the point of meaninglessness and needless sensationalism for 200 years now - they aren't about to stop now.

[Lothian]

There is a conflict between Sharia Law and UK law and it is right that something is done to assist Muslims in some circumstances, particularly finance.

Muslims are not allowed to make money from money. This means that financial products we take for granted need to be restructured for Muslims.

Take a transaction of buying a car. Say someone wants to by a car for £15,000 but does not have the money to buy it outright. He goes to the bank who lend him £15,000 at 5% over three years. He pays back (roughly) £15,000 x 5% x 3 years = £17250.

Under Sharia Law the Bank can not charge for lending money. One way they get round this is the by bank buying the car for £15,000 and selling it to the customer for £17250.

This conveniently gets round the 'making money from money' problem but does create problems under UK Law.

The bank is now selling a car and liable under the sale of goods act etc.

There is also a taxation issue. In the normal example the £15000 car is subject to VAT. The interest, £2250, is not.

In the Sharia restructuring the whole amount is now for a car and all £17250 is subject to VAT. This means that the bank makes less of a margin on the Sharia transaction. In order to make the same margin the Sharia Bank will have to charge around £400 extra.

The two transactions above are essentially the same; a car goes from the showroom to a customer with a lender compensated for financing the deal. The different contractual nature required by Sharia law penalises both the customer and bank. UK law should not aim to give different results for what is essentially the same transaction.

[Soapy Sam]

While I feel Rowan whateverhisnameisbutnottheonein"Mr.Bean" has a right to his opinion, I do not think he should use his place as head straight man for one of the sillier of religions to try to influence public legal/ political debate.

Legal advice from men in fancy dress with waggly beards is a religious practice better suited to the Middle East. It is so frightfully un-British, that I find myself wondering if the ArchBish is actually a Muslim "sleeper" infiltrated into the CoE by Alqaeda.
Stick the fellow in Gitmo, I say.

[Lothian]

While I feel Rowan whateverhisnameisbutnottheonein"Mr.Bean" has a right to his opinion, I do not think he should use his place as head straight man for one of the sillier of religions to try to influence public legal/ political debate.Having an intellectual as head of a Church is like putting a pacifist in charge of the Army. It was never going to work.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

UK law should not aim to give different results for what is essentially the same transaction.

Nice in principle, very very difficult in practice.

A good example is alternative finance products used to acquire property. As noted, interest is not permissible, so you can't borrow to buy your house. Solution was for the Bank to buy the house and rent it to you with an option to acquire it after a specified term for a specified sum. Problem was this meant that the Bank had to pay stamp duty when it bought the property and so did the customer when they bought it. Legislation was therefore introduced to remove one of the stamp duty charges (I think the Bank's) - result is widespread use of structures which exploit this loophole for commercial property transactions.

[Lothian]

Nice in principle, very very difficult in practice.

A good example is alternative finance products used to acquire property. As noted, interest is not permissible, so you can't borrow to buy your house. Solution was for the Bank to buy the house and rent it to you with an option to acquire it after a specified term for a specified sum. Problem was this meant that the Bank had to pay stamp duty when it bought the property and so did the customer when they bought it. Legislation was therefore introduced to remove one of the stamp duty charges (I think the Bank's) - result is widespread use of structures which exploit this loophole for commercial property transactions.Tax avoidance (or theft from the public purse) is possibly an area where Sharia law might offer a solution. :D

Legislation is difficult. However being difficult should not be a barrier.

There are ways to enact legislation to ensure it is read with a purposative approach. There are also options to include specific or general anti avoidance provisions.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Tax avoidance (or theft from the public purse) is possibly an area where Sharia law might offer a solution. :D

Tax avoidance is legal. If you have ever given a donation to charity and ticked the gift aid box, you have engaged in tax avoidance.

Legislation is difficult. However being difficult should not be a barrier.

There are ways to enact legislation to ensure it is read with a purposative approach. There are also options to include specific or general anti avoidance provisions.

Purposative approach won't help here - the purpose of the legislation is perfectly clear: to enable certain property transactions, which meet all the relevant conditions, avoid a stamp duty charge.

Don't see how either a GAAR or a mini-GAAR is going to help either - the only difference between the people you think are doing unacceptable tax avoidance and those doing legitimate business is religious belief. Don't like your chances of winning an anti-discrimination case.

[Lothian]

Tax avoidance is legal. If you have ever given a donation to charity and ticked the gift aid box, you have engaged in tax avoidance.I think tax avoidance is a term that means different things to different people. Certainly schemes described by some as tax avoidance have been seen as abusive by courts. As such they are not illegal rather they just don't work, but I nevertheless take your point.

Purposative approach won't help here - the purpose of the legislation is perfectly clear: to enable certain property transactions, which meet all the relevant conditions, avoid a stamp duty charge.

Don't see how either a GAAR or a mini-GAAR is going to help either - the only difference between the people you think are doing unacceptable tax avoidance and those doing legitimate business is religious belief. Don't like your chances of winning an anti-discrimination case.If you word it "to enable certain property transactions, which meet all the relevant conditions, avoid a stamp duty charge" I agree it could be difficult.

I know a lot of the Stamp Duty Legislation was rewritten 3 or 4 years ago. If rewritten as primary legislation and introduced through parliament, Hansard could make clear the reasons for the exemption and the situations in which it is envisaged that the exemption applies.

I can see how in your example a Muslim buying a house through a bank could be disadvantaged.

If the SFA want to buy Murrayfield from the SRU and the sale is routed through Edinburgh Rugby I am not sure the situation is necessarily the same.

I am no expert in Shaira law and don’t know whether it applies to virtual persons as well as real ones, Neither do I profess to be an expert in stamp duty, but I would have thought that a solution could be found without the need of a GAAR. Is there not some way the Ramsey principle could apply?

[WildCat]

There is a conflict between Sharia Law and UK law and it is right that something is done to assist Muslims in some circumstances, particularly finance.

Muslims are not allowed to make money from money. This means that financial products we take for granted need to be restructured for Muslims.
I don't see how this is a problem. It's the bank making money, not the Muslim borrower.

Take a transaction of buying a car. Say someone wants to by a car for £15,000 but does not have the money to buy it outright. He goes to the bank who lend him £15,000 at 5% over three years. He pays back (roughly) £15,000 x 5% x 3 years = £17250.
Now that is a crime! Because my calculations come out to £16,184. ;)

Under Sharia Law the Bank can not charge for lending money.
Why should Sharia apply to the non-Muslim bank?

[Lothian]

I don't see how this is a problem. It's the bank making money, not the Muslim borrower.I am no expert but think that the borrower would not go to a bank who makes money on money, but has no problem going to a bank who overcharges them for goods. You may call that irrational. I call it religionNow that is a crime! Because my calculations come out to £16,184. ;)5% of 15000 is 750. 3 x 750 = 2250. Ignoring compounding.
Why should Sharia apply to the non-Muslim bank?Western banks are interested in muslim customers and therefore are keen to design products to attract such customers.

[WildCat]

I am no expert but think that the borrower would not go to a bank who makes money on money, but has no problem going to a bank who overcharges them for goods. You may call that irrational. I call it religion
But I don't think that is how it works. There's a reason that Jews have historically been in the banking business - it's because they have no religious problems with charging interest. Christians (back when usury was a sin) and Muslims would thus borrow their money from Jewish bankers without violating their own religious tenents.

5% of 15000 is 750. 3 x 750 = 2250. Ignoring compounding.
Mainly, you're charging interest on money that has already been repaid.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can see how in your example a Muslim buying a house through a bank could be disadvantaged.

If the SFA want to buy Murrayfield from the SRU and the sale is routed through Edinburgh Rugby I am not sure the situation is necessarily the same.

I am no expert in Shaira law and don’t know whether it applies to virtual persons as well as real ones, Neither do I profess to be an expert in stamp duty, but I would have thought that a solution could be found without the need of a GAAR. Is there not some way the Ramsey principle could apply?

Well if you can think of one the Treasury would love to hear from you, because it is costing them a lot of money!

Ramsey is a non-starter though, IMO.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But I don't think that is how it works. There's a reason that Jews have historically been in the banking business - it's because they have no religious problems with charging interest. Christians (back when usury was a sin) and Muslims would thus borrow their money from Jewish bankers without violating their own religious tenents.

I guess, like many other things, it depends on which flavour of religion you follow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/living/mortgages.shtml

"Muslims must be sure that the mortgage complies with Sharia (Islamic) law. The biggest problem for a British Muslim who wants to buy a house is that either paying or charging of interest is prohibited."

[gumboot]

I have issue with the use of the word "law" here. Law is a specific thing for those nations that respect and value the rule of law.

If particular communities or cultural sub-groups wish to establish "rules", they can go for it. It's done all the time, in virtually every place you can think of. Work places have rules. Sporting games have rules. Schools have rules. Muslims, Jews, and worshippers of the Wobbly Octopus are likewise to establish and enforce whatever rules they wish.

But they are not laws. They do not hold the same status as law, they should never be compared to law, and they do not exempt one from complying with law. Law supersedes rules, at every point.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sporting games have rules.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesAndRegulations/FIFALawsOfTheGame/

http://www.bgs.qld.edu.au/edprog/extrac/rugby/laws.htm

A great many other bodies refer to "by-laws", for example the USGA has a model constitution and by-laws for member clubs to adapt.

I don't think the distinction is anything like as clearcut as you imply.

[tkingdoll]

I guess, like many other things, it depends on which flavour of religion you follow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/living/mortgages.shtml

"Muslims must be sure that the mortgage complies with Sharia (Islamic) law. The biggest problem for a British Muslim who wants to buy a house is that either paying or charging of interest is prohibited."

I was trying to explain this to a friend recently. He asked me why there are special Islamic mortgages. I said that Muslims can't pay interest, so instead the bank buys the house and sells it back to them at a much higher price which covers the amount of interest they would have paid over the life of the mortgage.

He replied "huh? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. What kind of person believes in a deity so powerful, his every whimish law must be followed to the letter, but who can be fooled by simply moving a number from one column to the other? If these rules were genuine or respected, why are these workarounds being found?"

I didn't have an answer other than "because religion isn't always compatible with modern greed. People want to buy nice houses AND not get smote, so they find ways around the rules. There are no repercussions because, I assume, there is no god." Anyone have a better answer?

[Darat]

Yes - it's proof that "God" is in fact a lawyer. After all only lawyers accept these types of technicalities as "good" and "right".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I was trying to explain this to a friend recently. He asked me why there are special Islamic mortgages. I said that Muslims can't pay interest, so instead the bank buys the house and sells it back to them at a much higher price which covers the amount of interest they would have paid over the life of the mortgage.

My understanding is that the bank buys the property, rents it back to them and grants them an option (or possibly they have cross options) to buy the house. So instead of paying interest they pay rent (which is OK) and over the life of the lease can save enough money to pay for the property (ironically, a bit like taking an interest only mortgage!).

He replied "huh? That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. What kind of person believes in a deity so powerful, his every whimish law must be followed to the letter, but who can be fooled by simply moving a number from one column to the other? If these rules were genuine or respected, why are these workarounds being found?"

I didn't have an answer other than "because religion isn't always compatible with modern greed. People want to buy nice houses AND not get smote, so they find ways around the rules. There are no repercussions because, I assume, there is no god." Anyone have a better answer?

Goddidit?

Moving in mysterious ways? (That's always a good one!)

"Look I only had seven days to make the whole shooting match and I wanted to play golf on the Sunday so you have to expect a few rough edges and some snagging"?

[Darat]

My understanding is that the bank buys the property, rents it back to them and grants them an option (or possibly they have cross options) to buy the house. So instead of paying interest they pay rent (which is OK) and over the life of the lease can save enough money to pay for the property (ironically, a bit like taking an interest only mortgage!).

...snip...

There's actually a few variations, see here for a quick summary: http://www.fancyamortgage.co.uk/IslamicMortgages/MortgageTypes.asp

[tkingdoll]

My understanding is that the bank buys the property, rents it back to them and grants them an option (or possibly they have cross options) to buy the house. So instead of paying interest they pay rent (which is OK) and over the life of the lease can save enough money to pay for the property (ironically, a bit like taking an interest only mortgage!).




We're both right. There are two types of Islamic mortgage, apparently: Murabaha, which is the sort I mentioned, and Ijara, which is the sort you mentioned.

Details here: http://www.mortgages.co.uk/islamic-mortgage.html

[ddt]

A good example is alternative finance products used to acquire property. As noted, interest is not permissible, so you can't borrow to buy your house. Solution was for the Bank to buy the house and rent it to you with an option to acquire it after a specified term for a specified sum. Problem was this meant that the Bank had to pay stamp duty when it bought the property and so did the customer when they bought it. Legislation was therefore introduced to remove one of the stamp duty charges (I think the Bank's) - result is widespread use of structures which exploit this loophole for commercial property transactions.
You are so lucky in the UK to have a stamp duty of maximally 4% - in Holland, it's a flat 6% rate. And at least that's something that you can come around with a carefully worded law. The bigger problem in Holland is that the interest paid on a house mortgage loan is an income tax deductible - and with most of mortgage terms being interest, you can see that's a big increase in cost.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You are so lucky in the UK to have a stamp duty of maximally 4% - in Holland, it's a flat 6% rate. And at least that's something that you can come around with a carefully worded law. The bigger problem in Holland is that the interest paid on a house mortgage loan is an income tax deductible - and with most of mortgage terms being interest, you can see that's a big increase in cost.

Yes, we are so lucky that we don't get a tax deduction for our mortgage interest any more! ;)

It would certainly make it a bit trickier to find a tax neutral solution though.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

We're both right. There are two types of Islamic mortgage, apparently: Murabaha, which is the sort I mentioned, and Ijara, which is the sort you mentioned.

Details here: http://www.mortgages.co.uk/islamic-mortgage.html

Don't you hate it when it turns out everybody is right?

[ddt]

Yes, we are so lucky that we don't get a tax deduction for our mortgage interest any more! ;)
You had that once in the UK too? And how did they abolish that? It seems to me that if you abolish it at once, the whole housing market will collapse. Until two years ago, discussing it in Holland was taboo even in the Labour party.

It would certainly make it a bit trickier to find a tax neutral solution though.
A lot trickier, I'd say. How do you determine the interest part of the payments - or their equivalent - if there's no mention of interest in the contract? It seems that Dutch banks have been studying halal mortgages for some years now. There are none to date.

[WildCat]

Huh, they have this here also. Learn something new every day on this board!

http://www.devonbank.com/islamic/

There's also a 3rd type here - Musharaka, which is a "rent to own" type of arrangement but slightly different than Ijara.

But in all cases, I think, the "borrower" loses the mortgage interest tax deduction. This is quite a big hit to take on taxes!

eta: the "borrower" will also get hit twice for the transfer tax.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You had that once in the UK too? And how did they abolish that? It seems to me that if you abolish it at once, the whole housing market will collapse. Until two years ago, discussing it in Holland was taboo even in the Labour party.

Originally you could claim relief on all interest.

Then (1974) they limited it to certain types, one of which was mortgage debt, and capped the amount.

Then they limited the rate at which you obtained relief (from 25% prior to April 94, to 20%, then 15% then 10%)

Then they abolished it (April 2000).

A lot trickier, I'd say. How do you determine the interest part of the payments - or their equivalent - if there's no mention of interest in the contract? It seems that Dutch banks have been studying halal mortgages for some years now. There are none to date.

A "bit trickier" may have been an understatement.

[tkingdoll]

Don't you hate it when it turns out everybody is right?

I wouldn't know, it hasn't happened before now! :D

Re: UK tax relief on mortgage interest, you still get it if its a commercial property or buy-to-let investment.

I must say, if someone pays more tax because their invisible sky daddy can only be appeased by the most pathetic sort of technical pedantry, then...well, cry me a river.

[Lothian]

I must say, if someone pays more tax because their invisible sky daddy can only be appeased by the most pathetic sort of technical pedantry, then...well, cry me a river.As with lots of things there are people who will agree with you and others that won't.

On one side you have a large number of civil servants who don't want to get involved in rewriting the law (which as Jaggy said often creates loopholes) just because someone's sky daddy tells them to pay more tax.

On the other side are MPs who want to keep their constituents happy.

Unfortunately this is not a balanced situation as one side have the power to tell the other side what to do.

[tkingdoll]

As with lots of things there are people who will agree with you and others that won't.

On one side you have a large number of civil servants who don't want to get involved in rewriting the law (which as Jaggy said often creates loopholes) just because someone's sky daddy tells them to pay more tax.

On the other side are MPs who want to keep their constituents happy.

Unfortunately this is not a balanced situation as one side have the power to tell the other side what to do.

Interesting, though, that the solution is 'change the law' and not 'change the religion'...

[Lothian]

Interesting, though, that the solution is 'change the law' and not 'change the religion'...Yes, but politics is not about what is best for the country it is about what is best for the political parties.

[tkingdoll]

Yes, but politics is not about what is best for the country it is about what is best for the political parties.

Yes it is, and the non-Muslim majority of the country are getting Islam-fatigue, I suspect. Certainly immigration will be the major GE issue, although of course that crosses many religions and ethnicities. In fact, non-skilled non-EU migrants are now an automatic refusal, I believe.

My point is, the major religions will change if it suits them, for example the Catholic Church getting rid of limbo, etc. Where a religion is not compatible with a clearly advantageous advancement of (Western) civilisation, or is unpopular, the religion usually gives. And I'd rather the religion adapted than the law, not least because it costs the taxpayer to change the law, unless there is a benefit to the economy (which I suspect there is with the accommodation of Islamic mortgages) or society as a whole.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Re: UK tax relief on mortgage interest, you still get it if its a commercial property or buy-to-let investment.

Indeed, but that doesn't represent a problem as rent paid in the same circumstances is also tax deductible so the Islamic products work fine. The difficulty under the old UK system (and I assume the Dutch system) is that there is specific legislation giving you a deduction for interest on a loan taken out to buy your home but no relief for rental payments on somewhere to live.

[iamivy]

While I feel Rowan whateverhisnameisbutnottheonein"Mr.Bean" has a right to his opinion, I do not think he should use his place as head straight man for one of the sillier of religions to try to influence public legal/ political debate.

Legal advice from men in fancy dress with waggly beards is a religious practice better suited to the Middle East. It is so frightfully un-British, that I find myself wondering if the ArchBish is actually a Muslim "sleeper" infiltrated into the CoE by Alqaeda.
Stick the fellow in Gitmo, I say.lol

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well if you can think of one the Treasury would love to hear from you, because it is costing them a lot of money!

Ramsey is a non-starter though, IMO.

Lothian - did you follow up on the idea of speaking to Mr Darling?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/

[Lothian]

Lothian - did you follow up on the idea of speaking to Mr Darling?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/He wouldn't return my calls, looks like you had better luck though.

Stamp duty isn't my area. There is no mention of whether there is a retrofix coming or whether existing schemes have got away with it successfully minimised their tax exposure

[Dr Adequate]

Just for your edification, here's Pascal's account of Jesuits doing the same workaround, from the Eighth Provincial Letter (http://www.romancatholicism.org/provincialletters/letter8.htm). This is supposedly a dialogue between Pascal and a Jesuit --- note how he works page references into his dialogue to prove that he's not making any of this stuff up.

“Let us now say a word or two about men of business. You are aware that our great difficulty with these gentlemen is to keep them from usury—an object to accomplish which our fathers have been at particular pains; for they hold this vice in such abhorrence that Escobar declares ‘it is heresy to say that usury is no sin’; and Father Bauny has filled several pages of his Summary of Sins with the pains and penalties due to usurers. He declares them ‘infamous during their life, and unworthy of sepulture after their death.’”

“O dear! “ cried I, “I had no idea he was so severe.”

“He can be severe enough when there is occasion for it,” said the monk; “but then this learned casuist, having observed that some are allured into usury merely from the love of gain, remarks in the same place that ‘he would confer no small obligation on society, who, while he guarded it against the evil effects of usury, and of the sin which gives birth to it, would suggest a method by which one’s money might secure as large, if not a larger profit, in some honest and lawful employment than he could derive from usurious dealings.’”

“Undoubtedly, father, there would be no more usurers after that.”

[...]

“These are subtle methods; but, to my mind, the best of them all (for we have a great choice of them) is that of the Mohatra bargain.”

“The Mohatra, father!”

“You are not acquainted with it, I see,” returned he. “The name is the only strange thing about it. Escobar will explain it to you: ‘The Mohatra bargain is effected by the needy person purchasing some goods at a high price and on credit, in order to sell them over again, at the same time and to the same merchant, for ready money and at a cheap rate.’ This is what we call the Mohatra—a sort of bargain, you perceive, by which a person receives a certain sum of ready money by becoming bound to pay more.”

“But, sir, I really think nobody but Escobar has employed such a term as that; is it to be found in any other book?”

“How little you do know of what is going on, to be sure!” cried the father. “Why, the last work on theological morality, printed at Paris this very year, speaks of the Mohatra, and learnedly, too. It is called Epilogus Summarum, and is an abridgment of all the summaries of divinity—extracted from Suarez, Sanchez, Lessius, Fagundez, Hurtado, and other celebrated casuists, as the title bears. There you will find it said, on p. 54, that ‘the Mohatra bargain takes place when a man who has occasion for twenty pistoles purchases from a merchant goods to the amount of thirty pistoles, payable within a year, and sells them back to him on the spot for twenty pistoles ready money.’ This shows you that the Mohatra is not such an unheard-of term as you supposed.”

[Jaggy Bunnet]

He wouldn't return my calls, looks like you had better luck though.

Stamp duty isn't my area. There is no mention of whether there is a retrofix coming or whether existing schemes have got away with it successfully minimised their tax exposure

Don't see any chance of a retrofix - all the tax that was due under the law was paid.

Think the article seriously underestimates the volume in which this has been used as well.

[INRM]

I do not think this is a good idea... religion and state should be kept seperate for a simple reason. Their mixture has toxic side-effects.


INRM
I wonder if this is some kind of ploy to ultimately cause a civil war in England in such a way as to require the EU to absorb England into it

[Ateius]

I do not like this idea, and was immensely relieved when it was turned down in Ontario, as I happen to live here.

What I don't like about it - aside from the possibility of violating the rights of women, the possibility of using it to justify some of the more barbaric punishments, etc., etc. - is that, on the face of it, I don't see a need for it to be a governmentally recognized law. If it is something only the faithful will take part in, and furthermore something that they will have to volunteer to take part in, there is no reason it cannot function as a set of rules within the muslim community without being established as law through the government. There is no reason to have it declared legally binding by the government, unless it is a 'foot-in-the-door' scenario, or they do plan to enact some of the harsher alternatives which would otherwise be very, very illegal (and with very good reason!).

I hold the same position on other religious "laws". If a community wishes to follow them - and they do not violate the secular laws - fine, go nuts. Don't try and have the rules of your personal religion enshrined as government-sanctioned law. Religious law has no place in a secular legal system. End of story.

[Dr Adequate]

I wonder if this is some kind of ploy to ultimately cause a civil war in England in such a way as to require the EU to absorb England into it Er ... we are in fact already a member state of the EU.

Which makes that about the dumbest conspiracy theory ever.

[SteveGrenard]

Maybe poster means to absorb England into the Muslim EU....Ateius has o/w come to a lot of sensible conclusions so maybe will benefit from confirming what he/she writes by checking out the links found at the Following wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

Here are some links/posts on the Muslim take over of significant parts of Sweden:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1637717/posts

You can find plenty of debate on the Muslim enclaves in France, Germany, Spain ....
all of which, terminating in the UK, can be attributed to the Islamic conspiracy to re-establish the caliphate.

Nope, you're right. the UK is not only already in the EU (save for its currency) large parts of it are also Muslim. Say wasn't this what the thread was about?

Why shouldn't immigrants be allowed to bring their own religion, culture, foods and laws with them. It would save them the trouble of attacking a target country from the outside.

Make sure and wear goggles to keep the sand out of your eyes.

[Fiona]

I have only just noticed this thread, so I am sorry if this has already been said. What the Archbishop wants is a "free market" in law. He made more than one speech about this but in the one I listened to in full he specifically recognises this as a consequence of his proposal and he embraces it as a good idea. He says the different legal systems will have to "compete" for people to use them and he sees this as very positive

[jimbob]

Just have to post Steve Bell's take on this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2254597,00.html):

[Ateius]

Actually, INRM was the one talking about the UK and the EU, not me.

I just laid out my personal position - that religious laws and customs have no place in a secular legal system, regardless of the culture they come from. If a close-knit community wants to voluntarily adhere to those rules (i.e., fasting for Lent or closing down your business on Sunday) that's their business (unless some of those customs are illegal under the secular legal system). When they try to get their religious laws and customs established like secular ones, then it's no longer acceptable.

[SteveGrenard]

I have only just noticed this thread, so I am sorry if this has already been said. What the Archbishop wants is a "free market" in law. He made more than one speech about this but in the one I listened to in full he specifically recognises this as a consequence of his proposal and he embraces it as a good idea. He says the different legal systems will have to "compete" for people to use them and he sees this as very positive

So Rowan wants to allow perps to shop the legal system they want to be tried under?
Hmm..one might give a slap on the wrist whereas the other may cut your (right) hand off at the wrist. I don't think its gonna work.

[Dr Adequate]

Maybe poster means to absorb England into the Muslim EU... Would that be the "Muslim EU" with an estimated Muslim population between 3% and 5%?

You can find plenty of debate on the Muslim enclaves in France, Germany, Spain ....
all of which, terminating in the UK, can be attributed to the Islamic conspiracy to re-establish the caliphate. You can "attribute" anything to anything. Evidence would be nice.

Nope, you're right. the UK is not only already in the EU (save for its currency) large parts of it are also Muslim. 2.7%.

Why shouldn't immigrants be allowed to bring their own religion, culture, foods and laws with them. I should be surprised if most British Muslims are immigrants, but as for those who are, I see no reason why they shouldn't bring their own religion, culture, and food with them --- it would seem unreasonable to leave 'em behind. Obviously they are required to live under British law, which is determined by a Parliament elected by UK citizens.

Make sure and wear goggles to keep the sand out of your eyes. You mean like when people tell me that "large parts" of the UK are Muslim?

[Darat]

So Rowan wants to allow perps to shop the legal system they want to be tried under?


...snip...

No.