Sharia law in Germany

[LordofTruth]

Here's a good mainstream news article on sharia in Germany. It's things like this that make me think there's something very smart about pro-active anti-sharia legislation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamic-mediators-facilitate-two-legal-systems-in-germany-a-839580.html

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yes, the situation described there is very bad, but what good do you think anti-sharia laws would do? The ones I am familiar with are either vague or only concern State acceptance. This is just out of court arbitration and societal pressures. Arbitration only gets power because the parties agree to it. Should we limit who arbitrators can be? I'd say we could go with precedent and limit the cases that arbitration can deal with, family law or crimes, for example. Of course, then the problem is if going to "get advice" from ones priest, imam, grandma is arbitration. I'd be willing to bet they would just do it informally enough to avoid such restrictions.

[jasonpatterson]

Virtually every society has people outside of the court system who arbitrate things of this nature. How many people go to a preacher, or a marriage counselor, or Uncle Fred, or whoever they have who is in a position of authority to help fix family problems? I don't think it's sharia that is keeping abusive relationships together.

[Cleon]

Oddly, this is only a problem with Muslims. Orthodox Jews and other religious minorities that do the same damn thing, for some reason, don't seem to be on the radar.

[ANTPogo]

Here's a good mainstream news article on sharia in Germany. It's things like this that make me think there's something very smart about pro-active anti-sharia legislation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamic-mediators-facilitate-two-legal-systems-in-germany-a-839580.html

Since the whole problem with these arbitrators is that they operate without the knowledge or involvement of any actual judicial or legislative authority, how is "pro-active anti-sharia legislation" supposed to help curb the activities or influence of these ad-hoc, below the radar shariah courts?

For example, if the exact same thing that's happening in Germany as described in the Der Spiegel article is happening in Kansas, recent Kansas "anti-shariah" bill signed into law (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb79_enrolled.pdf) by Governor Brownback wouldn't be able to affect things one little bit.

[ANTPogo]

Oddly, this is only a problem with Muslims. Orthodox Jews and other religious minorities that do the same damn thing, for some reason, don't seem to be on the radar.

Like this (http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/04/among_nj_orthodox_jewish_women.html), for instance.

[crimresearch]

So shariah is Arabic for 'domineering families'... :wink:

Clearly the answer should be anti-family legislation, hey OP?

[Robrob]

Here's a good mainstream news article on sharia in Germany. It's things like this that make me think there's something very smart about pro-active anti-sharia legislation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamic-mediators-facilitate-two-legal-systems-in-germany-a-839580.html

Non-judicial arbitration used by nearly every country and by many social groups. The OP is either uninformed or purposely deceitful.

[ANTPogo]

Non-judicial arbitration used by nearly every country and by many social groups. The OP is either uninformed or purposely deceitful.

The problem described in the article is, indeed, a problem. It, however, is not a problem exclusive to Muslims, and it's definitely not a problem that can be solved (or even begin to be addressed) by "pro-active anti-sharia legislation".

[lionking]

Virtually every society has people outside of the court system who arbitrate things of this nature. How many people go to a preacher, or a marriage counselor, or Uncle Fred, or whoever they have who is in a position of authority to help fix family problems? I don't think it's sharia that is keeping abusive relationships together.

This is my view as well. I didn't see any application of sharia "law" in that article.

[TsarBomba]

Oddly, this is only a problem with Muslims. Orthodox Jews and other religious minorities that do the same damn thing, for some reason, don't seem to be on the radar.

Cleon, In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you are not even wrong. The concept of a "get" under Jewish law, as governed by Jewish religious tribunals, gets a lot of press, a simple Google news search and about three seconds of thougt found this article (http://njjewishnews.com/article/9783/helping-wives-when-religious-tradition-is-a-trap#.T_ZMh3C1kQ0). The other issue is that Jewish religious tribunals are not as tolerant of things like wife beating, child marriage, forced marriage, and polygamy as the dufus furniture salesman in the article.

[ANTPogo]

Cleon, In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you are not even wrong. The concept of a "get" under Jewish law, as governed by Jewish religious tribunals, gets a lot of press, a simple Google news search and about three seconds of thougt found this article (http://njjewishnews.com/article/9783/helping-wives-when-religious-tradition-is-a-trap#.T_ZMh3C1kQ0).

I provided a link to an article written by the woman profiled there above. But Cleon's point still stands...how many "anti-halakha laws" have been proposed, much less passed?

The other issue is that Jewish religious tribunals are not as tolerant of things like wife beating, child marriage, forced marriage, and polygamy as the dufus furniture salesman in the article.

On the other hand, there's also things like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/nyregion/ultra-orthodox-jews-shun-their-own-for-reporting-child-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=all) (with more here (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/nyregion/for-ultra-orthodox-in-child-sex-abuse-cases-prosecutor-has-different-rules.html?pagewanted=all)).

The problem isn't Muslims or shariah. The problem is insular, highly conservative religious communities who handle issues like this solely within the community, and don't even talk to, much less involve, the actual governmental authorities of the countries those communities live in (and, in Germany's case, this is exacerbated by the various additional problems with assimilating and integrating primarily-Muslim immigrant communities due to the lack of the same sort of birthright citizenship that we have in America (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/02/opinion/la-oe-weise-birthright-20100902)).

[McHrozni]

Here's a good mainstream news article on sharia in Germany. It's things like this that make me think there's something very smart about pro-active anti-sharia legislation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamic-mediators-facilitate-two-legal-systems-in-germany-a-839580.html

You can't legislate who people turn to to settle disputes. You can educate them about alternatives however, and stringently persecute those that violate existing laws. I'm quite sure wife-beating is illegal in Germany, and if the husband spends a night in jail because of it, he may be less inclined to repeat it. If she is threatened by relatives for telling, you can move her and her children to a safe place and persecute the relatives, again using existing laws. If they are repeat offenders and non-citizens, you can deport them.

That won't solve the problem, but it won't get you any meaningful accusations of bias either, certainly nothing you need to be defensive about. It will also generate less opposition, as there would be little tangible about being against Muslims, it would be just keeping with the established laws and norms.

McHrozni

[Aepervius]

Here's a good mainstream news article on sharia in Germany. It's things like this that make me think there's something very smart about pro-active anti-sharia legislation:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/islamic-mediators-facilitate-two-legal-systems-in-germany-a-839580.html

It is not really sharia *law* in as so much as it is people applying some set rules in live without the law supporting them. In fact, if many of the situation described where put ebfore a judge, with the justification "it is sharia's law" it would be dismissed to suick and the situation made conform to german law.

Also : isn't spiegel yellow journalism anyway ?

[DC]

i have no problem with Muslims following sharia rules, or other religious groups folowing their rules, aslong they do not try to force me to follow the nonsense.

[Childlike Empress]

Also : isn't spiegel yellow journalism anyway ?


The print magazine was once highly reputable, has deteriorated somewhat during the last 15 years but is still far from yellow journalism. The online version, done by a different team, is mainly daily news, some gossip and propaganda. The English language section is relatively new and seeks audience by delivering to cliches about Germany. Mixing GWOT propaganda with this aim sometimes leads to alarmist, misleading articles like this.

[Babbylonian]

i have no problem with Muslims following sharia rules, or other religious groups folowing their rules, aslong they do not try to force me to follow the nonsense.
That sounds good until you consider that some could be using those rules to manipulate and abuse others, especially women. This makes me ambivalent about it (though not paranoid, like so many of "OMG Sharia comin' to get us" crowd).

For example, in the US we have the Amish community which has its own rules based on religion and maintains a certain separation from the rest of the country. But, they give their children a chance to experience and hopefully learn something about what they would be missing if they decide to commit to that separation and the Amish life as adults.

If, as the article implies (there seemed to be a lot of barely attributed anecdotes in it), young girls are being forced/manipulated into marriage and wives are being pressured to stay with abusers, that would be a good reason to give these practices a serious look and try to figure out a way to address them as a serious problem.

But why is this article being framed as if it has to do with Sharia law? The article itself makes clear that in large part the problem is that mediators aren't really following any law besides perhaps "Muslim men are to be in control of the lives of their wives and daughters."

[Dcdrac]

i have no problem with Muslims following sharia rules, or other religious groups folowing their rules, aslong they do not try to force me to follow the nonsense.

I second and third that

[DC]

That sounds good until you consider that some could be using those rules to manipulate and abuse others, especially women. This makes me ambivalent about it (though not paranoid, like so many of "OMG Sharia comin' to get us" crowd).

For example, in the US we have the Amish community which has its own rules based on religion and maintains a certain separation from the rest of the country. But, they give their children a chance to experience and hopefully learn something about what they would be missing if they decide to commit to that separation and the Amish life as adults.

If, as the article implies (there seemed to be a lot of barely attributed anecdotes in it), young girls are being forced/manipulated into marriage and wives are being pressured to stay with abusers, that would be a good reason to give these practices a serious look and try to figure out a way to address them as a serious problem.

But why is this article being framed as if it has to do with Sharia law? The article itself makes clear that in large part the problem is that mediators aren't really following any law besides perhaps "Muslim men are to be in control of the lives of their wives and daughters."

whenever an involved person does not agree with it they can go to a real court, or to the polive etc. those rules are not binding law. in front of a real court, those rules don't count at all.

Sure there is a problem in such communities that its not easy to break free etc, the pressure is very big. but i think the only thing we can do against it is protecting those that break free and help them to build up a life outside those communities.

[Babbylonian]

whenever an involved person does not agree with it they can go to a real court, or to the polive etc. those rules are not binding law. in front of a real court, those rules don't count at all.

Sure there is a problem in such communities that its not easy to break free etc, the pressure is very big. but i think the only thing we can do against it is protecting those that break free and help them to build up a life outside those communities.
That can't be the only solution - or at least no caring society should accept it as such - if the process is being used to abuse citizens or even alien residents.

[DC]

That can't be the only solution - or at least no caring society should accept it as such - if the process is being used to abuse citizens or even alien residents.

i don't see a way to prevent it.

[Babbylonian]

i don't see a way to prevent it.
Neither do I, but does that mean there shouldn't be/isn't a way?

[DC]

Neither do I, but does that mean there shouldn't be/isn't a way?

whenever we find a reasonable way to prevent such things (group pressure in communities) i am pretty sure i will be for it. But untill we find such a way, i think we should improve the tools we have already, helping those that want to break free.

[Caper]

Oddly, this is only a problem with Muslims. Orthodox Jews and other religious minorities that do the same damn thing, for some reason, don't seem to be on the radar.

The Orthodox Jewish population isn't busting at the seems like the Muslim population.... That is why.

[Ryokan]

The Orthodox Jewish population isn't busting at the seems like the Muslim population.... That is why.

My first thought was, so the badness of this is proportionate to how many does it? Millions of Muslims doing it is bad, but since there's just a couple hundred thousand Jews left in Europe, that's quite alright. That must mean that back before WW2, when we had millions of Jews in Europe, it was just as bad as the Muslims today. Hardly politically correct, but you're entitled to your opinions.

Another thought is that if you think the Muslim population is 'busting at the seems', at around 5% of the population in the EU (Around 2-3% in my country), you might be an islamophobe. How many of Europe's Muslim use this arbitration system, anyway, since you're putting the blame of it on all of them? I'm guessing both that you don't know, and that the number is fairly small.

The article of the OP sounds like it could be about any of Europe's Christian minorities as well. Jehovah's Witnesses, anyone? Pentecostals? There are also several smaller Christian groups in Norway that does their own in-group arbitration and doesn't involve the authorities. There has to be similar groups in other countries.

Lastly, where's the law here in Sharia Law? These are in-group mediation, and does not have the force of law. No one that has gotten mediation through this, or any other similar in-group mediation, has the force of law behind them. If they break the secular laws of their country with the blessing of some religious mediator, they're still liable for prosecution.

I've said it before, if you fear the imminent introduction of Sharia law in Europe, you're likely both a conspiracy theorist and an islamophobe, if not outright racist.

[ddt]

i don't see a way to prevent it.

There's one aspect of it that you can prevent. When I read the article, I was immediately struck by the mention of "religious marriages". So I checked the (German) wiki page on marriages. They're not: they're fake marriages, from a legal standpoint.

German law is very clear, since 1876: a marriage is performed by a civil registrar, in town hall. Religious "marriage" ceremonies have no legal force, and if you want one, you should have the religious ceremony after the civil ceremony.

That last injunction has been dropped since 2009: you may perform a religious "marriage" ceremony whenever you like, but they're still null and void legally: the authors of the new law thought such an injunction unnecessary "at least with regards to the two big churches" (RC and lutheran). While that may be true, it does send the wrong signal to these communities as described in the OP's article. On the contrary, you should IMHO make them clear that such marriages are null and void, by stating clearly they're verboten and fine them for it (and then I think in the first place to fine the responsible imam/rabbi/minister rather than the partners).

[Childlike Empress]

How many of Europe's Muslim use this arbitration system, anyway, since you're putting the blame of it on all of them? I'm guessing both that you don't know, and that the number is fairly small.


Indeed. From the article:

Arnold Mengelkoch, the official in charge of immigrant affairs in Berlin's Neukölln district, is familiar with the "informal Islamic family justice system" in his neighborhood. He estimates that 10 to 15 percent of Muslims in the religiously conservative community use the system to resolve their conflicts.


Needless to say that there are far less religiously conservative muslim communities in Germany than Berlin Neukölln.

[DC]

There's one aspect of it that you can prevent. When I read the article, I was immediately struck by the mention of "religious marriages". So I checked the (German) wiki page on marriages. They're not: they're fake marriages, from a legal standpoint.

German law is very clear, since 1876: a marriage is performed by a civil registrar, in town hall. Religious "marriage" ceremonies have no legal force, and if you want one, you should have the religious ceremony after the civil ceremony.

That last injunction has been dropped since 2009: you may perform a religious "marriage" ceremony whenever you like, but they're still null and void legally: the authors of the new law thought such an injunction unnecessary "at least with regards to the two big churches" (RC and lutheran). While that may be true, it does send the wrong signal to these communities as described in the OP's article. On the contrary, you should IMHO make them clear that such marriages are null and void, by stating clearly they're verboten and fine them for it (and then I think in the first place to fine the responsible imam/rabbi/minister rather than the partners).

as i said, their religous rules are worth nothing in front of real courts. but how are you going to forbid such ceremonies? you can't its part of freedom of religion.

[ddt]

as i said, their religous rules are worth nothing in front of real courts. but how are you going to forbid such ceremonies? you can't its part of freedom of religion.

Actually, you can - Germany had that injunction for a long time, and Holland has it too. I don't see big problems with forbidding it: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If the ceremony looks like a marriage ceremony, and vows resembling marriage vows are exchanged, it is a (religious) marriage ceremony.

I agree with you these ceremonies have no power of law, but actually outlawing them sends a firm message that they're undesirable.

[baron]

Sharia Law is not necessarily law in a legal sense, more in the sense of God's law that can, where permitted, inform part or all of the law of the land; that's why I try to refer to it as sharia. Having said that, if any person is compelled to engage with sharia then its legality is a moot point.

The way I see it there are three main problems with legally compliant sharia in Western society (I don't think there's a need to outline the issues with the more extreme flavours). First, nobody knows what it is. Almost all the moderate (I hate that word) Muslims I've heard who expressed a desire for sharia are of the opinion that 'real' sharia does not exist anywhere in the world today and are quick to condemn the barbarity of this 'false' sharia we see in parts of Muslim majority countries such as Pakistan and Saudi. The true sharia sounds all very nice but being that Muslims have apparently failed for many generations to implement or even define it, how might it ever be implemented anywhere and what would we get if they try?

Then there's the slippery slope issue. Even assuming a benevolent sharia can be defined, what will happen once its officially sanctioned? Although it might not be actual law it's still a compartmentalised social system operating in parallel with indigenous civil and judicial processes and as such will operate without outside regulation. It doesn't take much to imagine this being a literal godsend to the more extreme elements of Muslim society who would work to infiltrate and radicalise the process. And once something has been given it's very difficult to take away or even to challenge, especially where religion is concerned.

And regardless of its nature, should there be a need for it? I think not. It encourages segregation, strengthens divides and shuns the democratic process. This is true for any group whether they be Muslim, Jewish, secular or whatever. Maybe in the States they can get away with it for smaller groups such as the Amish but the UK is too crowded for this to work long-term.

[Cleon]

This is true for any group whether they be Muslim, Jewish, secular or whatever. Maybe in the States they can get away with it for smaller groups such as the Amish but the UK is too crowded for this to work long-term.

Well, the (Jewish) Beis Din has been available as a legal arbitration alternative for at least fifteen years now (http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789702_1.pdf), and somehow society has managed to not collapse. So how long-term are we talking about?

[Darat]

Well, the (Jewish) Beis Din has been available as a legal arbitration alternative for at least fifteen years now (http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789702_1.pdf), and somehow society has managed to not collapse. So how long-term are we talking about?

A teeny-weeny bit longer than 15 years!

The oldest Beth Din in the UK was established in the 18th century....

[Aepervius]

Actually, you can - Germany had that injunction for a long time, and Holland has it too. I don't see big problems with forbidding it: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. If the ceremony looks like a marriage ceremony, and vows resembling marriage vows are exchanged, it is a (religious) marriage ceremony.

I agree with you these ceremonies have no power of law, but actually outlawing them sends a firm message that they're undesirable.

I am sorry but if people want to roleplay a religious mariage ceremony, they can as much as they want, marry a man a woman or any combination polygamous or monogamous , or even klingon, as they want. Since it has no elgal meaning and it is an adult "roleplaying game" the law has nothing lost there and should butt out.

The bottom line is that mariage as a legal entity can only be performed by a mayoral officer, and the rest is not recognized by law. That does not mean it should be forbbiden by law.

[ddt]

I am sorry but if people want to roleplay a religious mariage ceremony, they can as much as they want, marry a man a woman or any combination polygamous or monogamous , or even klingon, as they want. Since it has no elgal meaning and it is an adult "roleplaying game" the law has nothing lost there and should butt out.

The bottom line is that mariage as a legal entity can only be performed by a mayoral officer, and the rest is not recognized by law. That does not mean it should be forbbiden by law.
That may be your opinion, but it is the case in several countries. I mentioned Germany (until 2009) and the Netherlands. And the French Code Pénal, art. 433-21 (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006418591&dateTexte=20120708), says:
Tout ministre d'un culte qui procédera, de manière habituelle, aux cérémonies religieuses de mariage sans que ne lui ait été justifié l'acte de mariage préalablement reçu par les officiers de l'état civil sera puni de six mois d'emprisonnement et de 7500 euros d'amende.
Wow, 6 months jail and a € 7,500 fine (for the religious minister, BTW).

I trust the judiciary enough to see through if it's indeed a case of innocent "roleplay" or if it's meant bloody serious.

[Lamuella]

I have to say that I'm a tiny bit more concerned by the 26 unelected bishops who have voting positions in my country's parliament than by muslims agreeing to muslim arbitration. The results of such arbitration should be subordinate to the secular law of the land, of course.

[Cleon]

A teeny-weeny bit longer than 15 years!

The oldest Beth Din in the UK was established in the 18th century....

Yeah, but the Arbitration Act was in 1996.

[LordofTruth]

So shariah is Arabic for 'domineering families'... :wink:

Clearly the answer should be anti-family legislation, hey OP?

Well, this is getting into real Gates of Vienna.blogspot.com.au/ (http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com.au/) territory, but it is a good question as to why any culture would import a set of values and narratives that are vehemently hostile to it. Perhaps a discriminatory immigration policy would be a good, if radical, idea. I'm all for multiculturalism, quite passionately so, but are paralell societies healthy? Why not use positive discrimination and import people who think westernism is fantastic? That was the narrative that much of multiculturalism was built on in the 80s and 90s. Migrants and refugees often have the greatest spirit, and even understanding of, western values, because they know what opportunities they offer, which a lot of the natives take them for granted while they play their playstaions on their huge TVs and stuff themselves full of junk food until they're so fat the blubber hangs over their tracksuit pants to the floor.

I suspect the kind of social fragmentation discussed in the article, where the fragments are large and clearly delineated (in this case in terms of appearance, values, law, and even geography where ghettos form), inflexible (in this case because it's based on dogma on the islamic side, but I think the west has done/is doing a good job of being flexible towards islam) and based on highly conflicting narratives (which are easily caricatured on both sides), is what leads to extremely tense and dysfunctional societies at best, and civil wars at worst.

[LordofTruth]

Non-judicial arbitration used by nearly every country and by many social groups. The OP is either uninformed or purposely deceitful.

Woo! I can't let that pass unchallenged can I?

I know there are all sorts of other arbitration systems. I'm sure I could set up my own, based on Satanic principles, if I wanted to. Major differences between sharia and other ones include:

The scope of sharia; I think this is a point a lot of islamic apologists overlook. Sharia isn't just a set of laws (which is my understanding of what Beth Din or Canon law is), but it's an entire, and truly vast, legal system, and it's not even a legal system in the same way as western legal systems are. It's spiritual-social-legal (anybody wondering what than means should go and find out), and it's very fuzzy-edged (work that one out too). Somebody on this thread pointed out that nobody really knows what sharia is exactly. That's a good point, and an indication of how massive it is. I don't think islamophobes like me are particularly concerned about the implementation of a number of clearly defined islamic 'laws' in arbitration tribunals operating within the secular system. If that was the case I'd take the same attitude to it as I do to Jewish Beth Din - I think the results can be tragic (such as in the article ANTpogo linked to), but I'm not particularly bothered by them, because the scope of the results are so limited. If a few women and children are spiritually crippled and have awful lives as a result, that's terrible for them, but perhaps it's also the price of freedom of religion. I think the secular law should support those who want to shield themselves from these systems, and that secular law only should apply to children, and I support the efforts of activists within these communities to help people, but it's not something I'm going to actively concern myself with.

I see sharia as a broader social threat, largely because islam is an extremely dynamic and innately expansive religion, demograhically, theologically, memetically, socially, and even spacially, and many of it's internal narratives are extremely hostile to the west. Things like marriage laws are just one facet of sharia, and could be the pointy end of a huge juggernaught. Perhaps that's paranoid, but I don't see islamic apologists making much attempt to delineate at what point western societies should draw lines (and actively enforce them) as to what's acceptable and what's not. Female Genital Mutilation? Polygamy? Assault? Child custody? Blasphemy? Free speech? These are all lively issues as far as islam-in-the-west goes, but trying getting straight answers about the extent or implications of them is frustrating. I'd be a lot less paranoid if answers were easy to come by. Do I want to live in a society where FGM is widespread and routine, women and girls are routinely beaten because a god says it's okay, and I can't blaspheme against a god I truly think's a joke? One of the reasons I can see the point in anti-sharia legislation is that at least they're some attempt to make these boundaries clear - and I don't think they would limit the ability of sharia tribunals to operate, within the scope of the secular law, anyway. My understanding is that these laws are probably impractical for a whole variety of legal reasons, but i support their pro-western sentiment, and think it's unfortunate that it's largely right-wing Christians who've driven them, when it should have been the liberal left defending these boundaries in a more intelligent way twenty years ago - or now, at least as best they can.

I'm aware that the legal status of things like arranged marriages, free speech, assault, and suchlike in the west is usually clear and well protected, as far as the western legal system goes, and as the OP article makes clear. What concerns me is the emergence of parralel legal systems and societies. Just because a legal system is informal and enforced by others than the state, doesn't mean it's not a legal system, or a least an applied and enforced systemization of a concept of law, which, in the case of sharia, has even been applied to non-muslims, especially in matters of freedom of speech. I just don't think that it's good for society, especially when that systemization is innately expansive, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and even hostile to the broader society.

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. I hope it makes sense. but I don't think I was being uninformed or deceitful in my OP. I might rant more later, but that should do for now.

[ANTPogo]

The scope of sharia; I think this is a point a lot of islamic apologists overlook. Sharia isn't just a set of laws (which is my understanding of what Beth Din or Canon law is), but it's an entire, and truly vast, legal system, and it's not even a legal system in the same way as western legal systems are.

Shari'ah is actually remarkably similar to halakha (Jewish law - a Beit Din is simply the "court" that interprets and implements halakha, the same way that al-mahkamah al-shari'ah, a Shari'ah Court, interprets and implements shari'ah). Andrew Rippin, in his Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (3rd Edition) (http://www.amazon.com/Muslims-Religious-Beliefs-Practices-Library/dp/041534882X/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341799375&sr=1-3&keywords=muslims+their+religious+beliefs+and+pract ices), has noted,

Much of Islamic law, in substantive terms, can be seen to reflect a Jewish background and concerns common to Judaism. At the same time, portions of the law appear to have developed in a pragmatic way, with the adoption of laws and practices as they were found in the lands which were conquered; this is especially evident in elements of Roman law which were adopted in the Muslim environment. These two trends - Jewish and Roman - often merged, and they were reshaped as the distinctive Muslim law emerged.

And the reason why "nobody really knows what sharia is exactly" is because shari'ah is the term for the general Islamic conception of God's revealed law to guide humanity on the proper path. The problem is that what God actually revealed is not exactly as clear as everyone would like. The Qur'an itself only contains specific legal rulings on a handful of matters, and the development of the sunna as a part of jurisprudence not only came surprisingly late in the history of Islam, it developed differently in the various disparate parts of the Islamic "empire" which gave rise to the independent schools of jurisprudence. Shari'ah has thus had to be interpreted and figured out by human beings (the process of determining Islamic jurisprudence, fiqh, has always been distinguished from the overarching Divine Law itself, from the Platonic Ideal of shari'ah, if you will), and while God's law is supposedly perfect, human understanding of said law is vastly imperfect. That's why there are competing schools of jurisprudence (madh'hab - each of which had their own version of the sunna at the beginning which affected their development and interpretation of shari'ah), divergent opinions (ikhtilaf), and even conflicting rulings (fatawa) about individual aspects aspects of shari'ah that are issued by the scholars of Islamic jurisprudence (ulama). And that's just Sunni Muslims...we haven't even started with shari'ah as interpreted by other sects like the Shia (and their subsects) or the various turuq ("orders") in Sufism...to say nothing of the salafists like the Wahhabis, who (while nominally Sunni) have explicitly abandoned the many centuries of tradition in interpretation and codification of shari'ah in Islam when formulating their own version of it. Muslims themselves can't agree on what "sharia is exactly", and they never have.

Here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.html?pagewanted=all) a brief history of the development and application of shari'ah, written by Noah Feldman.

[McHrozni]

The way I see it there are three main problems with legally compliant sharia in Western society (I don't think there's a need to outline the issues with the more extreme flavours). First, nobody knows what it is. Almost all the moderate (I hate that word) Muslims I've heard who expressed a desire for sharia are of the opinion that 'real' sharia does not exist anywhere in the world today and are quick to condemn the barbarity of this 'false' sharia we see in parts of Muslim majority countries such as Pakistan and Saudi. The true sharia sounds all very nice but being that Muslims have apparently failed for many generations to implement or even define it, how might it ever be implemented anywhere and what would we get if they try?

This is a major issue with just about every controversy with Islam. There is simply no clear structure that could define and codify laws, just a bunch of clerics, some with more pull and some with less, that can choose which set of laws and beliefs they will follow and how they will modify them. Some will condemn suicide bombers, other will praise them as martyrs and no one may definitely claim which of the two is right.

McHrozni

[Darat]

Yeah, but the Arbitration Act was in 1996.

That was only a piece of new legislation, arbitration in civil matters has been entirely legal and enforced by the legal systems in the UK for literally centuries.

It's a "right" that I've often used and I really dislike how some folk want to remove the right to choose arbitration.

[Darat]

Woo! I can't let that pass unchallenged can I?

I know there are all sorts of other arbitration systems. I'm sure I could set up my own, based on Satanic principles, if I wanted to. Major differences between sharia and other ones include:

The scope of sharia; ...snip...

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. I hope it makes sense. but I don't think I was being uninformed or deceitful in my OP. I might rant more later, but that should do for now.

"Sharia" is an umbrella term for a legal system that involves Islam, there is no "a sharia" legal or justice system.

In the UK a "sharia court" (more properly an "arbitration tribunal") is constrained and of the same scope as any Beth Din, it can only deal with matters that we can choose binding arbitration to deal with. Since it is part of the legal system it has to follow the usual legal precept. In another thread someone brought up that in some versions of Sharia a woman's testimony is only worth a quarter of a man's, however that principle could not be used in a Sharia arbitration tribunal in the U. If it was then the tribunal would have acted illegally and any decision made would not be binding, in fact it would be rendered null and void.

ETA: Should have read the rest of the thread before I posted: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8436544#post8436544 - what he said! :)

[Cleon]

That was only a piece of new legislation, arbitration in civil matters has been entirely legal and enforced by the legal systems in the UK for literally centuries.

Ah, ok.


It's a "right" that I've often used and I really dislike how some folk want to remove the right to choose arbitration.

Well, you're not Muslim, so its not your rights they want to curttail.

[bit_pattern]

i have no problem with Muslims following sharia rules, or other religious groups folowing their rules, aslong they do not try to force me to follow the nonsense.

Yup. and just as long as it remains subservient to common law; i.e. render unto Caesar and all that...

[McHrozni]

Yup. and just as long as it remains subservient to common law; i.e. render unto Caesar and all that...

That's an aspect of Christianity (and a very good one at that) that doesn't quite appear in Islam I'm afraid. Don't expect them to agree to it easily or permanently.

McHrozni

[Rasmus]

That may be your opinion, but it is the case in several countries. I mentioned Germany (until 2009) and the Netherlands. And the French Code Pénal, art. 433-21 (http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006418591&dateTexte=20120708), says:

Wow, 6 months jail and a € 7,500 fine (for the religious minister, BTW).

I trust the judiciary enough to see through if it's indeed a case of innocent "roleplay" or if it's meant bloody serious.

Do you have an actual argument other than two nations that agree with your stance and one that no longer does?

What is the actual reason to not want people have religious marriages, if it's understood that these are not legally recognized? I really don't see it.

[ANTPogo]

Professor Intisar Rabb (http://works.bepress.com/intisar_rabb/), who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law and Islamic Law at Boston College Law School, explains shari'ah (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/rabb_interview.html).

[Ryokan]

That's an aspect of Christianity (and a very good one at that) that doesn't quite appear in Islam I'm afraid. Don't expect them to agree to it easily or permanently.

McHrozni

Of all the countries where Muslims are the majority, very few of them are actually under Sharia law. Most of them have secular governments and secular law. So it's not a completely foreign concept to them.. :)

[crimresearch]

Of all the countries where Muslims are the majority, very few of them are actually under Sharia law. Most of them have secular governments and secular law. So it's not a completely foreign concept to them.. :)
And one could be skeptical and think that even the others are actually run by politicians who just happen to be wrapping themselves *more* heavily in religion and citing shariah when it suits their goals...

[bit_pattern]

Don't expect them to agree to it easily or permanently.


Who cares? The point is that any Sharia dispute resolution system can be overridden by a higher court in the event it doesn't comply with law. Simple. People don't have to agree to that, it's just a matter of fact. I have NO problem with Sharia being used to resolve disputes at a low level, it takes strain from an already overburdened legal system, as long as it's findings can be overridden by a higher court if unlawful. I can't see it making a shred of material difference to any other dispute resolution processes individuals in a society might form for themselves.

[ddt]

Do you have an actual argument other than two nations that agree with your stance and one that no longer does?

What is the actual reason to not want people have religious marriages, if it's understood that these are not legally recognized? I really don't see it.

Is that understood? I wouldn't want to count the people who don't understand that. I wouldn't even want to count the ministers who don't understand that - e.g.,in Holland many imams are flown in directly from Morocco or other ME countries who don't know the Dutch language, Dutch culture etc., so why would they know Dutch law? - and that's probably the case in other countries too.

Secondly, any religious marriage uses the same vocabulary as a secular marriage. It doesn't say the partners are "religiously married", no, they're "married", they're "husband and wife", and the minister says they have certain obligations towards each other.

The minister doesn't start with a disclaimer "This is only a religious marriage and is null and void for the law. You may disregard all the vows you take here, the police won't come after you, only your neighbors will try to make life a living hell for you if you do so".

In fact, most Abrahamic religions don't even recognize secular marriage, and pretend theirs is the only relevant one. Catholic doctrine is very pronounced in this. AFAIK, only mainstream protestantism is the only religion which consciously says that marriage is the state's business (both Luther and Calvin have explicitly said so).

So yes, I think the State has a legitimate interest in protecting what is sold under the title of "marriage". It does so for a lot of other things, after all.

The State also says that "homeopathic medicine" may not contain health claims that have not been scientifically proved. Or any medicine at all, for that matter, and if you don't disclose the risks properly or try to sell it off-label, you risk a hefty fine.

The State also says that you may only label a product "chocolate" if it has a certain minimum amount of chocolate in it. And not just chocolate, about any food product has been regulated as to its contents.

In the same vein, the State may regulate what's being sold as "marriage". As it's actually the monopolist (in continental Europe) in selling marriages, it also has a legitimate interest in regulating what's being sold by religions as a marriage and to whom.

[Rasmus]

Is that understood? I wouldn't want to count the people who don't understand that. I wouldn't even want to count the ministers who don't understand that - e.g.,in Holland many imams are flown in directly from Morocco or other ME countries who don't know the Dutch language, Dutch culture etc., so why would they know Dutch law? - and that's probably the case in other countries too.

It's the law. So, yes, it is understood. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. i.e. if you go to your local church, synagogue or McDonalds thinking what you do there will get you married, the problem is entirely yours, not anybody else's.

Secondly, any religious marriage uses the same vocabulary as a secular marriage. It doesn't say the partners are "religiously married", no, they're "married", they're "husband and wife", and the minister says they have certain obligations towards each other.

So?


The minister doesn't start with a disclaimer "This is only a religious marriage and is null and void for the law. You may disregard all the vows you take here, the police won't come after you, only your neighbors will try to make life a living hell for you if you do so".

So?

Really, I fail to see the actual problem.

If you want to make it illegal for the minister to lie, I've got a long list of stuff we should get out of the way first ...

In fact, most Abrahamic religions don't even recognize secular marriage, and pretend theirs is the only relevant one. Catholic doctrine is very pronounced in this. AFAIK, only mainstream protestantism is the only religion which consciously says that marriage is the state's business (both Luther and Calvin have explicitly said so).

So?

Why should that be relevant? why should anyone care one way or another what these people do or think?

So yes, I think the State has a legitimate interest in protecting what is sold under the title of "marriage". It does so for a lot of other things, after all.

But what they sell as marriage is in no way affected by what people do in their churches. Or at McDonald's, really.

The State also says that "homeopathic medicine" may not contain health claims that have not been scientifically proved. Or any medicine at all, for that matter, and if you don't disclose the risks properly or try to sell it off-label, you risk a hefty fine.

Yes. But for that, you'd need a church actually claiming that it performs a legally recognized marriage.

The State also says that you may only label a product "chocolate" if it has a certain minimum amount of chocolate in it. And not just chocolate, about any food product has been regulated as to its contents.

That is because there is a certain expectation tied to a product called "chocolate". And I just don't see that same problem with church marriages.

In the same vein, the State may regulate what's being sold as "marriage". As it's actually the monopolist (in continental Europe) in selling marriages, it also has a legitimate interest in regulating what's being sold by religions as a marriage and to whom.

Only religions aren't "selling" a product, they are performing a ritual.

I see endless trouble in trying to regulate rituals, religiously or not - based in the individual words used and there would be no benefit.

Plus, even if the odd couple would manage to get a Church marriage without realizing that they aren't really married - they are bound to find out soon enough and can simply get married for real, if they so chose.

I don't think there are enough cases of terminally stupid people that end up in all sorts of actual trouble that would warrant a ban.