Archive for Thursday, July 10, 2008

British bow to Muslim law

July 10, 2008

Advertisement

So this is how it ends: not with a bang, but a whimper.

The most senior judge in England has declared that Islamic legal principles in Sharia law may be used within Muslim communities in Britain to settle marital arguments and regulate finance. Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law. Sharia law does not comply with English law. It is a law unto itself.

And so the English who gave us the Magna Carta in 1215, William Blackstone and the foundation of American law are slowly succumbing to the dictates of intolerant Islam and sowing seeds of their own destruction.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organization (IKWRO), an umbrella group of activists who work in Muslim countries to liberate women from the dark side of this oppressive force, according to Womensphere.wordpress.com, identifies Sharia family law as the fundamental basis for discrimination against women in the Muslim world, including communities in the United Kingdom.

Here are just some of the "benefits" British Muslim women can look forward to if Sharia law replaces English law: The Muslim woman cannot marry without parental approval, worsening the problem of forced marriage; marriages can be conducted without the presence of a bride, as long as the guardian consents, creating a climate for underage and early marriage; Muslim women may only marry Muslim men.

It gets worse. A Muslim man can divorce his wife by repudiating her; they have no obligation to support a former wife, or her children after the divorce; women are prohibited from divorcing husbands without his consent; abuse is not grounds for a woman to end a marriage; in matters of inheritance, sons are entitled to twice as much of an estate as daughters.

It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law? This will mean English law must become subordinate to Sharia law. This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority.

Maryland's Court of Appeals recently denied a Sharia divorce to a Pakistani man. The man's wife of 20 years had filed for divorce. To circumvent having to share their $2 million estate and other marital assets, he went to the Pakistani embassy and applied for an Islamic divorce. The man wanted to invoke what is known as talaq, in which the husband says, "I divorce you" three times and it's done.

The Maryland court said, "If we were to affirm the use of talaq, controlled as it is by the husband, a wife, a resident of this state, would never be able to consummate a divorce action filed by her in which she seeks a division of marital property" and the talaq "directly deprives the wife of the due process she is entitled to when she initiates divorce litigation. The lack and deprivation of due process is itself contrary to (Maryland's) public policy."

British Muslims who wish to live under Sharia law might have stayed in the countries from which they came - or return to them. But their objective appears to be domination of England, not assimilation. This also seems to be the goal for Muslims in other countries with large and growing Muslim populations.

There is no due process under Sharia law. Lord Phillips has signed the death warrant for his nation if his opinion becomes the law of England. It's one thing to fight a war and lose it. It's quite another to willingly surrender without a struggle.

- Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"Of course, that they are even discussing it is not a good thing, as it would be a spectacularly bad idea"There is no talk of adopting Sharia Law in Britain. The talk is of tolerating it among those who voluntarily submit to it, but only if it doesn't conflict with British Law.

Jaylee 6 years, 12 months ago

"I have a rational fear and hatred of all things islamist."fear leads to anger. anger leads to hate.and hate leads to suffering.you'sa scared.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

It was mostly a joke, Brent.Still, the Mormons, pre-statehood especially, had a few cultural ideas that were every bit as strange as Sharia Law, but modern Utah, under pressure from the secular legal tradition of the US, is quite moderate. I expect that Sharia Law, as practiced in western democracies, will be similarly moderated.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

BTW, I see no reason why polygamy should be illegal, as long as the participants don't violate other laws, especially when it comes to providing for kids.

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

The British may bow - just don't lose your heads!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

A little over twenty years ago, I spent a couple of weeks in London with a Hungarian family, in a neighborhood predominately made up of Hasidic Jews and Jamaicans. While that might not have been the London of Charles Dickens, it was still London, and likely still is.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

"The Mujlis must be run on Shariah Law and non-Muslims are not usually schooled in Shariah Law."I'm sorry, but this looks to me like an institutionalized disenfrancisment of non-Muslims. Basically, non-Muslims would be effectively barred from governmental involvement. I see this as having the seeds of totalitarianism. I would not be comfortable with Sharia law here in the States in anyway shape or form. I think you've sold me on Cal's point.

iLikelawrence 6 years, 12 months ago

I'm waiting for a hard swing to the right to fix all this

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"It is an error to ever let religious teachings take precedence over secular law that governs the UK as well as the USA."Read Lord Phillips's statement again. They are NOT being given precedence over secular law. Don't let Cal (or screed) suck you in to their bigotry.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 12 months ago

Bondmen listed as "religious" teachings from the bible:"1. Do not murder2. Do not commit adultery3. Do not steal4. Do not bear false witness"These are indeed in the bible, as are many other "laws" that are not codified in our secular documents (such as bigamy and slavery laws handed down to Moses by God). These four concepts predate christianity and even judaism and can be found in the earliest written laws of the sumerians and babylonians. Even cultures without written language have similar concepts.

pistachio 6 years, 12 months ago

It seems to me that Lord Phillips' opinion will have zero effect on British Muslims. If a portion of sharia law conflicts with British law, it simply won't be enforced. This would include most of the disparate divorce and family law provisions. Honestly, it sounds like Phillips was just trying to extend a gesture of tolerance to fundamentalists in a way that has a symbolic affect only. Anyone who really wants sharia in Britain will be disappointed by his opinion.

Brent Garner 6 years, 12 months ago

Had a good chuckle seeing Invictus' comments. I am presuming they were a bit tongue in cheek.And a request. To those who keep saying "we could call it Utah" would you care to explain your connection between Islamic conduct and Utah? I think I see your connection but before I leap to a conclusion would like you to explain yours in case I have drawn the wrong conclusion.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

Can we please, for the last time, stop saying ignorant things like "according to Islamic sharia" or "Islamic sharia says." I know there are some out there who are a little too thick to apprehend such subtleties, but let me point this out: 1. "Sharia" is not a codification of laws.2. "Sharia" is not a dogma.3. "Sharia" is a general concept referring to numerous approaches to applying the teachings of the Koran to secular moral and legal issues. Even Mr. Thomas, for all his race-baiting, acknowledges that in the above article, although he quickly passes over it. An imperfect analogy would be to say "American law says X" when speaking about the laws of Illinois. Another imperfect analogy would be "Christianity says X" when referring to the teachings of the Baptist church.Also, "Islamic sharia" is redundant.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

We're not really in agreement, at all. "Any law based upon "because God said so" is precisely the subversion that I am describing." I think this makes it all too easy to point at a viewpoint or an idea, claim it is religiously based, then belittle and diminish the view. Utimately, all laws are based on values. In the US we debate and discuss laws. Aren't you saying that all laws must square with your values?

Speakout 6 years, 12 months ago

Reading, You can believe what you want, there is no compulsion for you to be Muslim. PERIOD. But what individual countries do may not be what Islam dictates. There are words that refer to certain things in life like the word Shiksa in Yiddish. That means a woman who isn't Jewish. The word Kaffir is one who doesn't believe in God, puts partners to God or doesn't believe in the last day.The Mujlis must be run on Shariah Law and non-Muslims are not usually schooled in Shariah Law. But this only happens in real Shariah based countries and frankily, I don't know of any that are really Shariah based.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 12 months ago

Bondmen,"Extremist teachings"? Sorry buddy some of those teachings are hardly original with Jewish or Christian theology. When I saw the "extremist" label I thought you were going to elaborate on the old testament teachings of stoning the wives who are found not to be virgins, or killing disobedient children, or killing those who work on Sunday as a few examples. Funny how none of those teachings are codified into US laws. (I am curious to see how you think "thou shalt not commit adultery" is codified into US laws?)

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. American legal principles allow the same thing. It's no different than saying "any dispute regarding this agreement will be subject to the laws of Florida." Or, to take a more directly parallel example, "no party to this agreement shall file suit until any grievance shall be submitted to Christian arbitration." (Which is, for those who don't know, a rapidly growing trend in which disputing parties have a referee decide the dispute in accordance with Scripture). Which is completely acceptable to US courts.So what is the source of Mr. Thomas's complaint? That the people involved in this particular case are Muslims. Now, if his complaint is that principles of sharia are incompatible with human rights, he may have a point regarding some aspects of the system (although treating sharia like it's a uniform legal system with concrete principles is either ignorant or misleading; additionally, one might make the point that Christian theocracies don't exactly have the best track record in this regard). However, given the context of Mr. Thomas's voluminous opinions on Muslims in the past, the only logical conclusion is that this is merely the extension of his irrational fear and hatred of all things Muslim.

boltzmann 6 years, 12 months ago

Of course, how is this really different than the concept of covenant marriage that is becoming popular in the more evangelical states of the union (for example, Louisiana). I would say it is different in degree, perhaps, but not in principle - use of Sharia law in Britain and covenant marriages in the US both are based on the premise that groups can opt out of the normal us legal system for religious reasons. Not necessarily a good idea in my opinion, in either case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"Again, no intellectual curiosity about islamism?"WTF?"Next thing you know, you'll be able to anull (sic) your marriage because your bride is not a virgin."If both parties in the marriage agree to that sort of requirement, why should anyone else care, as long as it doesn't violate other laws, such as those concerning division of property, child support and custody arrangements?

bd 6 years, 12 months ago

Beware , the islamic plague will soon be upon all of us!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

I wasn't really intending to single out Mormons for their strange notions-- all religions have them. But the LDS certainly moderated its beliefs (dropping polygamy as an accpeted practice, for instance) in order for Utah to become part of the mostly secular United States.

Speakout 6 years, 12 months ago

I have just read all this blather about Shariah Law and intolerance and that non-Muslims in Muslim countries are treated poorly, etc, etc ad adnauseum...According to Islamic Shariah:If one lives in a Muslim country and is not Muslim, they are supposed to pay a 2.5% tax to the government. This is because it is stated in Quran that Muslims are to pay 2.5% of their income, so to make it the same, and since non-Muslims do not follow the Quran, it makes it the same tax rate. To charge more, the Muslim authority would be comitting a huge sin and the non-Muslims would riot.Shariah law requires that one who lives in a country where Shariah Law is not the ruling law, they must comply with the governing law. So if I were to divorce in the USA, I would need to follow the Laws of the USA, not Shariah laws. I could follow the Shariah until it differs with American Law. So what Cal Thomas is talking about is pure bunk and shows his high prejudice for Islam and Muslims. If you are not a Muslim, there cannot be a penalty on you at all under Shariah Law. If you take for a god other than the one creator we call God, the Quran says you are a Kaffar which means a non believer in God. In a Muslim country, according to Shariah Law, you must, and I repeat MUST, be treated the same and there is no penalty upon you except the tax which is incumbent upon every one. Anyone who discriminates is punished according to their deeds by God.I will not state that every Muslim country does this things because each country does whatever the dictator wants. Most dictators reject Shariah Law, because Shariah Law requires a Mujlis Asurah which is similar to a Parliament. Without it, the Shariah Law is not balanced and it must be. So those of you who are afraid of Shariah Law would be protected by it if you aren't Muslim.In Lebanon, for example the Government is divided into several groups, they all live peacefully when not being pushed around by the West, Syria or Israel. There the govenment is split into this: The President Must be Shiite, the Prime Minister must be Sunni, the Leader of the Parliament must be Orthodox Christian and the Supreme Court is headed by a Catholic, the Military is headed by either a Christian or a Druze and so on. The government works when neither the West, Syria or Israel interferes.Please stop all this blather about this. None of you know what you are talking about and that goes especially for Cal Thomas whose prejudice blinds his judgement and his journalism.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

Are there any countries with a Mujlis Asurah?Is this parlimentary body open to non-Muslims?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

" the only logical conclusion is that this is merely the extension of his irrational fear and hatred of all things Muslim."Well put, geniusmannumber. Doesn't this also apply to you, screed?

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

Sure, I agree with this: Substituting a religion's dogma for the law or even equating the two does indeed subvert a tradition of laws.However I have a problem with this:"replace our secular laws with their religious laws to "make our laws reflect the Christian Bible"."It is my opinion that whenever Christians get involved in certain issues, this charge gets leveled.Sometimes it comes across as, let's just scream theocracy anytime Christians speak.There's a big difference between taking a stand on this issue or that issue, and legally imposing my belief system on everyone.

beatrice 6 years, 12 months ago

The British also have a Queen. I guess we better be afraid that are going to get one too.

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

The wimps and weenies know who they are - there's more hope for you than those mentally ill bloggers here. We know you both by your willingness to morally equate Christianity and Judaism with Islam and by your words of willing compromise with radical Islam. Prepare yourselves because you will first be used by the Muslims then you will be abused by them. For American men and women who wish to hear useful and encouraging thinking correctly pointing out the dangers we face with radical Islam, you can listen live to Dr. Michael Savage from 5 to 8 PM Monday thru Friday on http://www.710kcmo.com/listenlive.asp

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

If someone chooses to submit to Sharia law, as long as it doesn't violate the laws of a particular country, then, yes, I could hypothetically tolerate it, screed. But since we're talking about Great Britain, and I live in Lawrence, it really doesn't make any difference whether I tolerate it or not.How about you?Oh, good to see that you are beginning to show some understanding of "premise" and "strawman."

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 12 months ago

"I agree with you, but this isn't what Lord Phillips is suggesting."Why, Bozo, you make it seem as if Lord Phillips said nothing at all about using sharia law instead of british law in some cases. I might be wrong, but to my reading this is precisely what he has said.

Speakout 6 years, 12 months ago

When I speak about Shariah Law or on Islamic topics, I speak only to what is written in Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet, not necessisarily what is practiced by supposed Islamic Countries.The Quran states: "2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things."In a true Islamic country no one could be killed for aposty or any kind of utterance or blasphemous statements. Because there is no compulsion. What some countries do now is follow the Wahabi rules set out by a pseudo scholar and has set the Islamic world back hundreds of years, even before the revelation of the Quran.A woman has a choice in marriage, she cannot be married against her will. But some places that allow that are not following Shariah. They are following their own rules. The people on this board who consistantly mis quotes and mis interprets the precepts of Islam are in the majority of those who have not read the Quran or studied its meaning. I have offered many times to meet with people and have spoken at a few churches and other groups in the past bringing about a true dialog about Islam and Muslims. Not all Muslims follow Islam just as not all Jews or Christians follow theirs.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

Okay, and if I say, to you, that Jesus was a Jew not a Muslim. And is God's Son. and is God's final revelation to the world, then that isn't blasphemy, and isn't a crime?And we won't even go into what some other posters would say. Because I could see where someone could take your Surah and claim that I was blaspheming and was therefore evil.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

And the Mahdi??? What about him? Is this part of mainstream Islamic thought?

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

"Rulings like this are pushing Britons into the BNP ranks."This statement reflects an absolute ignorance of British history, British politics, and the current state of Britain.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 12 months ago

This is a huge mistake on the part of Britain.It is an error to ever let religious teachings take precedence over secular law that governs the UK as well as the USA.Let us keep this in mind when the religious right in our own country try to impose their version of christianity on our secular system of government, which is designed to protect all equally and fairly.The last thing Britain needs is to bow to religious extremists. If they cannot live in a secular society that existed before they immigrated, then they must either change or deal with it. Ridiculous.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

"Then the rest of us can lock up the remaining few religious types..."That was Stalin's solution. And of course, you see all us religious types as the same.

gr 6 years, 12 months ago

"Cal states this rather important caveat early on, then proceeds to ignore it in order to spread his own version of intolerance."bozo, why do you say he proceeds to ignore it? Did you miss this in the middle:"It is impossible to reconcile this antiquated "law" with English law, so what could Lord Phillips mean when he says that Sharia law can be used in Muslim communities as long as such laws comply with English law?"

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

That could easily describe your religion, too, bondmen. But I have no intentions of letting either you or the muslims impose your religion on me.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"And, of course their children."Yes, their children could be subject to some aspects of Sharia Law, but only if the laws don't conflict with British Law, screed, and that's a very big "if."You can spin around this all you want, screed, but there is no move to adopt Sharia Law in Britain.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"This is boon for men's rights in the west..i can't wait for sharia law to liberate men across the west. Have as many wives as you like, beat them, and when they divorce you they get nothing. Freedom"We could call it Utah.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

"I have a rational fear and hatred of all things islamist."I doubt that."Perhaps that's why I love Independence day so much."Hell. Yes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

The line is already firmly drawn, as Lord Phillips has clearly indicated.

coolmom 6 years, 12 months ago

have you been to london recently? it already looks like islam has taken over. my mom in law is english and said london no longer looks like its in england. she stays out of london and in the countryside and she before anyone gets too crazy is a nice older lady who does like everyone just feeling some sadness about her country.

coolmom 6 years, 12 months ago

i dont think it was color but culture and the fact that things are very different from when she was a child. she was an english nurse in vietnam who married a part black america serviceman. she does like everyone and even if she didnt her english manners would not allow her to say so but if you have been to london in the last few years it is filled with all kinds of people who have not had the english way of life. different and sad because an 80 year old lady mourns for her childhood home? i dont give a darn about color as she doesnt but i do feel sad for her and the memories of her childhood that she apparently treasures.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

coolmom--Replace "islam" (which is a religion, not a group of people) with "blacks" or "West Indians" and you have a typical statement from 1960s Britain. Or replace "islam" with "blacks" and you have a typical statement from 1960s America. Or replace "islam" with "Hispanics" and you have a typical statement from present-day America. I'm not sure that a relative of yours having a not wholly admirable knee jerk "Oh my gosh, there's a whole bunch of different colored people around, let's get out of here" reaction really proves any sort of point.

Brent Garner 6 years, 12 months ago

Yes, Bozo, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ceased the practice of polygamy in 1890. Care to guess why? Well, federal legislation stripped any believer of polygamy of the right to vote. All church property was seized. Men and women were arrested and sent to prison. The state practically became a penal colony. All the while the Supreme Court of the US said it was legal even to do this to the "Mormons" even though from a purist viewpoint the practice of polygamy was clearly a religious matter which should have been protected under the first amendment. Interestingly, in that 1950s or early 1960s the Native American Church sued under the First Amendment to get the Feds to stop arresting them for using peyote--an illegal hallucinogenic derived from a cactus which they used in their religious ceremonies. So, we have religious tolerance for drug use, but no religious tolerance for polygamy. Sounds just a bit biased if you ask me.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

Speakout,I have a question that I would like to tactfully ask you. Are apostasy and blasphemy high, or even capital, crimes under sharia? Because it seems that in many sharia-governed countries it is. Of course, there's always a difference between theory and practice, hence my question.Please, I'm asking the question because you seem to be a bit more acquainted with sharia than I am.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

"How are #2 and #3 not mutually exclusive?"I'm not sure what this question means, so I'll simply try to clarify further. While "dogma" has a number of connotations, we'll just define it generally as "a system of principles or tenants, or a prescribed doctrine." "Sharia" is not a system of principles or tenants. It is not a list of laws that is to be followed. It is a blanket term covering a number of schools of Islamic legal thought. For example, there are a number of schools, including maliki or jaafari (I think those are spelled correctly; I should probably just wikipedia them). These schools vary not only in content (you shall do this, you shall do that) but also in how dogmatic they are ("here are a list of things you can't do, and here are the penalties" v. "here are some guidelines by which a good Islamic society should structure its laws.") My point is that when you say "sharia says this", you are implying that all Muslims have the same beliefs, outlook on the world, view of non-Muslims, etc. Which they obviously do not.Of course, if one's intent is to convince others that all Muslims do believe the same thing, have the same beliefs, etc. for one's own (most likely racist) purposes, please, by all means, continue to be inaccurate.

boltzmann 6 years, 12 months ago

Before we go all gaga here, note that contrary to the headline, the british have not yet "bowed" to sharia law - this whole article was about something the top judge said in a speech, not official british policy. The use of sharia law has not been adopted by Britain and I would be highly surprised if they did. Of course, that they are even discussing it is not a good thing, as it would be a spectacularly bad idea - one of the many drawbacks of not having a formal constitution.

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

Islam is much, much more than a religion. It is an all encompassing way of life and a political and cultural ideology.Its many non "religious" facets must be firmly and completely dealt with, without the "religious" protections afforded by our Constitution. Those familiar with the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers or more recently, the Borg from Star Trek The Next Generation, will recall how those forces would invade and capture people who were unaware, or would not believe the danger and finally those who could not resist.In looking around the world where Islam is hegemonic or in ascendancy one clearly sees Islamic Sharia law harshly applied to women, homosexuals and infidels. For all you liberals, there is absolutely no social justice in Sharia law. Resist Islam now before resistance is futile and/or suicidal - or forever regret it. It's time to wake up folks.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

Just when I thought that you were beginning to understand what a "strawman argument" is, screed. And I had such high hopes.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"In his speech at an East London mosque, Lord Phillips said Muslims in Britain could use Islamic legal principles as long as punishments - and divorce rulings - comply with English law."Cal states this rather important caveat early on, then proceeds to ignore it in order to spread his own version of intolerance.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 12 months ago

Oh, and I forgot to mention: I agree with Cal on this one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"Substituting a religion's dogma for the law or even equating the two does indeed subvert a tradition of laws."I agree with you, but this isn't what Lord Phillips is suggesting.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

I think the words of Lord Phillips were quite clear-- Sharia law will not be allowed to trump English Law."Bozo, you tolerate sharia?"I wasn't aware that I need to.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

Moorish Spain was downright liberal and cosmopolitan compared to the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabel.

Emily Hadley 6 years, 12 months ago

"Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."Doesn't this indicate that everyone, including women, would have to declare their own voluntary participation in a contract under Sharia Law, such as a marriage? Two individuals should have the right to go into a contract under Sharia law, but not, of course, to create contracts for others against their English rights.Even if a minor has a parent or guardian agreeing to the contract (such as an arranged marriage that would not be legal under English law), if the very creation of that contract by the guardian violated English law, the contract (here, marriage) would then not legitimately be formed by the parties in the contract. As English law dictates this to be voluntary, the minor should have English law protecting her from the illegal actions of her parents.If a marriage was formed and both parties expressed that they wanted their marriage to be in accordance with Sharia Law, then it would be, according to voluntary nature of the contract. If the wife didn't agree to Sharia Law for the marriage, tough stuff for the guy when the divorce comes.Not enough information based on this article, but that is how it sounds to me.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

screedposter,While I may agree with some, or even many of the things you've posted, and I respect your viewpoint and the way you've presented it. Let him answer for himself, please. "Golden Rule".

Fred Whitehead Jr. 6 years, 12 months ago

Sharia law is very easy to understand. It was formulated by male muslim individuals to keep all others in submission. Women, other religions, anyone who disagrees with the makers of the law. It is not unique, google up "The Crusades" and discover that there were early Christians that tolerated killing, torture, murder, most any crime inmaginable so long as the victim represented an imaginary threat to "the one true religion". Other religions have had similar histories. The main problem now is that there are some segments of the Islamic religion, just like some splinter groups of the Christrian Religion, that continue to follow this ancient mindset to justify their crimes and misconduct in today's world. Witness 9-11. The problem is that most religion is fabricated fantasy, formulated to elevate the true belivers above other "non-believers" or "infidels" or whatever moniker you wish to slam on anyone who you don't like or is subject to scorn by your particular exhalted religious fantasy. It is,simply stated, My God can kick the ass of your god." "My church has better church-night dinners than your church" , "My preacher lets us out of services earlier so we can beat the Baptists/Catholics/Episcopalians to the cafeteria". Yadadadadadadada etc ad nausium.

geniusmannumber1 6 years, 12 months ago

Bondman--Does the phrase "Always know your dealer" mean anything to you?It should.

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

Extremist Christian and Jewish teachings which come from the Holy Bible and are foundational to the survival of the United States, codified in our Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Case Law based on British Common Law are:1. Do not murder2. Do not commit adultery3. Do not steal4. Do not bear false witnessWe certainly do not want these "religious" teachings to influence our secular sensibilities, do we?

verity 6 years, 12 months ago

Can we all agree on these two statements?Cal Thomas doesn't like Barack Obama.Cal Thomas doesn't like Muslims.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 12 months ago

"There's a big difference between taking a stand on this issue or that issue, and legally imposing my belief system on everyone."Agreed. The religious must make reasoned and non-religious, secular arguments to support their ideas. Any law based upon "because God said so" is precisely the subversion that I am describing.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

In a true Islamic country no one could be killed for aposty or any kind of utterance or blasphemous statements. To be clear, would there be any punishment, at all?

Jaylee 6 years, 12 months ago

"This is Dhimmitude, an Islamic system of religious apartheid begun in the 7th century that forces all other religions and cultures to accept an inferior status once Muslims become the majority."about the only piece of useful, unbiased information worthy of anything more than a myspace blog in this whole article. i wish i got paid to press my opinions without regard to objectivity.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 12 months ago

Bozo wrote:"Don't let Cal (or screed) suck you in to their bigotry."They could hardly do that. If my view is bigoted in your eyes, so be it. I think for myself and reach my own conclusions without being bullied by the right or the left.To even give symbolic credence to the use of religious law, elevating it to the respectability of secular law, is a dangerous precedent.Those on the left would do well to stop the knee-jerking and think about the ramifications of "non-bigoted" actions with this issue. For example, allowing people to speak a different language (e.g. spanish) does not undermine a tradition of laws. Substituting a religion's dogma for the law or even equating the two does indeed subvert a tradition of laws.Both sides of this need to think instead of jerk their knees.In my own country, the USA, extremist christians are trying to do the same thing, replace our secular laws with their religious laws to "make our laws reflect the christian bible". This is a danger to our republic, and I level the same criticism against them.

Brent Garner 6 years, 12 months ago

Strange notions in Utah?Oh, like women can vote--1870. Refresh my memory but whan did women get the vote nationally? Oh yeah. Not until 1920. Yup, really strange radical notion there in Utah back in 1870.And what strange pre-statehood cultural ideas are you referring to, Bozo???Frankly, the previous suggestions seemed to want to compare the privilege of men, under Sharia Law, to beat their wives, with women's rights, or the alleged lack thereof, in Mormon Utah. Hardlly a fair or accurate comparison, and one definitely designed to slight and insult members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I was told on an earlier issue that religious bigotry was dead here in progressive Lawrence.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

What is your point, screed? That all muslims are terrorists?

fundamental 6 years, 12 months ago

From David Pryce-Jones:A Place for Sharia Law in BritainIn Britain, the Lord Chief Justice has just told an audience in one of the largest mosques in London that there is a place in Britain for sharia law. The Archbishop of Canterbury not long ago was of the same opinion. The pillars of the Establishment, in other words, are willing to collapse what they were supposed to be upholding. Amazingly, the feminists have not uttered a squeak of protest about what would happen to women in the event that sharia law was applicable alongside or within British law.The Swiss are not taking so easily to creeping Islamization. In the past, the King of Saudi Arabia felt free to break building regulations at a palace he owned on the shore of Lake Geneva, and the City Fathers forced him to demolish what had been put up without permission. A mosque already existed in Geneva, but when the Muslim community sought to have a second mosque, the City Fathers replied that this would be possible when the Christians were allowed a church in Saudi Arabia. There is no record that outraged Arabs consequently withdrew their petro-dollar millions held in the local banks.There are just over seven million Swiss, and they are Europe's premier example of multi-culturalism, a centuries-old fusion of French, German, and Italian cultures and languages. Muslims, almost all immigrants, are said to number some 300,000. The Swiss Peoples' Party (SVP) has raised a storm by collecting more than 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for a ban on minarets in the country. Minarets, according to the SVP, are "symbols of political-religious imperialism." A spokesman for the party pointed out that, "Many women, even socialists, signed this petition because not one Swiss woman can tolerate the way that Muslim men treat their wives." By law, a national referendum is now obligatory. Favouring this form of direct democracy, the Swiss constantly hold referendums on every kind of issue. The Swiss authorities, including the country's President, recommend the rejection of the ban on minarets. They are openly and explicitly terrified of provoking Muslim anger, thus bringing a security risk on themselves. That's also the sum total of the argument put forward in Britain by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chief Justice. All these great persons on the one hand openly hold themselves and their societies in disdain, and on the other hand show an even greater degree of contempt for Muslims by treating them as creatures of a fanaticism so furious that it can only be propitiated and never reasoned with or moderated.

beatrice 6 years, 12 months ago

Perhaps all the people who identify as Christian could have a battle to the death with those who identify as Muslim. Just go to a designated spot -- lets say Iraq -- and bring a club. Back and forth and back and forth the battle will go, until one side wins. Then the rest of us can lock up the remaining few religious types and be done with this nonsense. In a thousand years, repeat.

Brent Garner 6 years, 12 months ago

Speakout:You say you speak only what is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Are these your interpretations or are you schooled in one of the five dominant schools of Islamic thought? Are you recognized by even one of them as having received sufficient formal training as to understand the Qur'an and the Sunnah? If so, please share with us which of the five schools you profess to follow? If you are not trained and recognized by one of the five schools, then by what authority do you claim to interpret the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah?

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

"Sharia LawUnlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia (pronounced "sha-rÃie-uh"), which translates approximately as "way" or "path." The precepts of Sharia are derived from the commandments of the Quran and the Sunnah (the teachings and precedents of Muhammad as found in the reliable hadiths and the Sira). Together, the Quran and the Sunnah establish the dictates of Sharia, which is the blueprint for the good Islamic society. Because Sharia originates with the Quran and the Sunnah, it is not optional. Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah's faithful are required to combat.There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms -- an elective system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. -- whatever the outward structure of the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the Sunnah.The precepts of Sharia may be divided into two parts:1. Acts of worship (al-ibadat), which includes: Ritual Purification (Wudu)Prayers (Salah)Fasts (Sawm and Ramadan)Charity (Zakat)Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj)2. Human interaction (al-muamalat), which includes:Financial transactionsEndowmentsLaws of inheritanceMarriage, divorce, and child careFood and drink (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)Penal punishmentsWar and peaceJudicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern..."http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/

jaywalker 6 years, 12 months ago

Readingsports: "I would not be comfortable with Sharia law here in the States in anyway shape or form. I think you've sold me on Cal's point."I would like to believe that could never happen, as it would fracture our premise of Seperation between Church and State. Muslim law is completely based on their religious beliefs and rules their lands. That is not legal here in any form, or at least it's not supposed to be.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 12 months ago

I'm not particualarly religious, but isn't Beatrice describing Armageddon? I suppose she was just being sarcastic, as she is much smarter than I. And yes, the intolerance of athiests is a chip off of the ol' block. Glass houses anyone?b

Speakout 6 years, 12 months ago

Bk here yoiu are asking a good question again and am to assume that you will try to turn it around and misquote me tor what I write? If you cannot discuss with respect this will be the last.Some Muslims believe that the Quran is complete and needs no explanation or interpretation from "scholars" who are mostly guided by their own prejudices and points of view. I do not follow any one school and they recognize no one except those who follow them. I believe in my own judgment and so does God. He said: '54:17 And We have indeed made the Qur'an Easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?' '3:105 Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty,' I think my religion should be based upon clear signs and not hidden meanings and disputations. The Quran is clear and I can read, so I make my own school of thought. Why can't I, they did. But I have studied a lot and have read a lot of the writings that happened hundreds of years ago. So my job is to apply it to today. listen or believe me or not, it is up to you, but I won't say anything that I am not familiar with.Islam does not require women to be second class citizens In fact it tries to make them equal. Read all of the second chapter it says many things that open up life for women as compared to where they were before Islam. It is the men who want to hold them back. In many Muslim countries women are vital and are part of the world. Most Middle Eastern countries don't allow that for their own purposes not according to Islam. Apostasy is a relative term and those who live in Muslim countries under Shariah Law are protected by the Law to believe what they want. There is no compulsion in religion. Only in Mecca are non-muslims not permitted. This is to be the shrine for Muslims. I wouldn't expect to see Muslims as part of the council that rules in the Vatican or in Anglican churches where they have their own councils. I believe that in a Muslim country non-Muslims who want to serve in government can. They can in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt. I don't know about other countries. Haven't been to them all.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

"Then the rest of us can lock up the remaining few religious types..." After that little chorus... Honestly, sometimes Islam is less scary than atheism. But, Christians will resist the Evil One wherever he is found. Going to take a shower after all those tomatoes I'm going to get. So toss away.

supertrampofkansas 6 years, 12 months ago

"Athiest regimes have brought more death and destruction through war than all the religions combined." - Big PruneName an example of this Big Prune?Hitler was at least a theist and not an atheist.Stalin may have been an atheist but he also identified himself as a communist and led a oiligarchical communist system (something that has been demonstrated over and over again not to work.) It is true that all loyal communists were atheists but they were atheist because communism requires it. They weren't communists because of their atheism.Ditto for Pol Pot.It is tiring having to point out that it is incorrect to call atheism a regime, a philosophy, or a religion. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no collection of creeds or claims that is represented by atheism. You can have a socialist atheist, a liberal atheist, a conservative atheist etc. It has a very narrow definition and it only forms a small part of a person's worldview. Atheism is not about dogma and to claim that it does reveals your lack of understanding with the English language. One can reject theistic beliefs based on reasonable doubts without being dogmatic. I do not deny that atheists can be dogmatic but that dogmatism has nothing to do with a lack of a belief in god or gods.If I used the same kind of reasoning that Big Prune uses, then by the same token I could say that men with black mustaches and hair have brought more death and destruction through war than all the clean shaven fair-haired men combined which would be equally valid.

bd 6 years, 12 months ago

Non of it matters after they take over!

BigPrune 6 years, 12 months ago

Athiest regimes have brought more death and destruction through war than all the religions combined.

coolmom 6 years, 12 months ago

hey malcolm you ass any number of other words could be added for women if you like? how about any person of color? poor people? people not of the aristocratocy? people who dont fit the "right" mold? who have the "right" religion. the "right" job? i hope you are just trying to get a reaction?

mly 6 years, 12 months ago

Um, before everyone goes apes**t, the British Jews have a similar arrangement for their Jewish laws. I cannot remember the exact term for it. I don't think this is actually going to work any different. And malcom, it's not like the male-dominated politic schemes of the last several centuries have the best track record, either--unless you like war, rape, pillage, forced conversions, destruction of cultures, etc.

ReadingSports 6 years, 12 months ago

Speakout,If I misconstrued your words, I do apologize. I thought that your message was clear. If it wasn't then clarify....Don't get upset, if you want to explain your viewpoint on these boards then you can't get upset everytime someone disagrees with you.It was my understanding that you are proposing the following:1. That sharia law is perferable for national governance.2. That a government based on sharia would include a Mujlis as a national legislative body.I was directing my criticism at this supposition. "I wouldn't expect to see Muslims as part of the council that rules in the Vatican or in Anglican churches where they have their own councils." Yes, I agree and Christians shouldn't be part of the rule of a Mosque. But Christians have also rejected the idea of a nationalized, or government sponsored, church, for many reasons. Sharia Law would seem to be equivalent to a nationalized government sponsored Mosque. As to you having your own personal interpretation, doesn't that make you a cult or apostate in Islam? (To be honest, and clear it would in Christianity.)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.