Sharia laws, theories vary among world's Muslims

[araz]

Samudra
Quoting from your own article:
Just because the 'aqd is a valid contract, however, does not make it a valid marriage in the eyes of English law, unless that is, the nikah marriage has taken place overseas in a jurisdiction where it is recognised as a valid marriage, for example, in Pakistan – or where it has taken place in a mosque registered in accordance with section 26(1)(A) of the Marriage Act 1949.

What you saw is the Islamic marriage or Nikah. What you probably did not see was the civil ceremony that took place before that.
This needs to be a separate ceremony which at the end of the day is what is recognized by the courts, not the Nikah held in Britain.
Secondly the jews came from the account given in the BBC news by a gentle man Member of the House of Lords where the Arch Bishop sits. Ican not give you a specific source but the news item should be reproducable should you want to challange me in a court of law. Just kidding
Regards
Araz

 

[Samudra]

or where it has taken place in a mosque registered in accordance with section 26(1)(A) of the Marriage Act 1949.

Just get the mosques registered. This wont be such a hard thing to do. All you need to do is tell the government that this is our gangs religious place and we want to get married here. The government registers the place as a 'religious place' and viola!! You're now husband and wife - legally! Such a hard thing to do ?

Looks like the Jews, Hindus and Sikhs are all doing the same thing. Muslims cannot look reasonable if everybody in the house gets along except them. There are provisions in the existing law to marry in a mosque and enforce that marriage contract. So there appears to be no issue in marrying and multiplying.

Look at the end of the day Muslims end up looking like a bunch of guys who just don't want to integrate themselves with the mainstream society. There is no particular tangible advantage Sharia confers upon the Muslims - it does not deliver the sky to the Muslims - in fact sharia is probably one of the reasons why many Muslim countries remain perennially backward.

So exactly what is that makes the Muslim want the Sharia ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So exactly what is that makes the Muslim want the Sharia ?

We had an interesting exchange on that issue, I'll see if I can find the thread, but the main point was that Sharia is essentially the Muslim "Utopia". I think the reasons behind demanding it are different for those Muslims who reside in the West and those still in Muslim countries. In Muslim countries, many of whom remain developing nations with all of the problems of developing nations- especially corrupt, inefficient, autocratic governments - Sharia is looked upon as something that will miraculously cure all ills of society. The "Shariah State" will miraculously elect "incorruptible and great leaders", and social justice, equality and fair distribution of wealth shall reign forth. In developing countries the idea is bought by the masses (primarily poor and uneducated) because it also ties in with faith, so you get the best of both worlds.

In western countries, where arguably quite a few people demanding Shariah are not dealing with the same issues the developing world is, the motives tend to be very much faith based, and I think reflect a desire to somehow stop the "dilution of culture and faith", which is also interpreted as "isolationism" and a "lack of desire to integrate". Such communities have been tolerated and allowed to "not integrate" in the West, such as the Amish in the US.

I suppose that precedent could be applied to some Muslim groups who are adamant about this, but I would draw the line at some very basic rights - anyone (daughter, wife, mother etc.) who wants to leave the community/not be governed by its rules should be allowed to do so, and violence of any kind should not be tolerated. I think that in the long run the isolation of such communities itself becomes a retardant to their growth. Just some thoughts.

 

[Logic note]

We had an interesting exchange on that issue, I'll see if I can find the thread, but the main point was that Sharia is essentially the Muslim "Utopia". I think the reasons behind demanding it are different for those Muslims who reside in the West and those still in Muslim countries. In Muslim countries, many of whom remain developing nations with all of the problems of developing nations- especially corrupt, inefficient, autocratic governments - Sharia is looked upon as something that will miraculously cure all ills of society. The "Shariah State" will miraculously elect "incorruptible and great leaders", and social justice, equality and fair distribution of wealth shall reign forth. In developing countries the idea is bought by the masses (primarily poor and uneducated) because it also ties in with faith, so you get the best of both worlds.

In western countries, where arguably quite a few people demanding Shariah are not dealing with the same issues the developing world is, the motives tend to be very much faith based, and I think reflect a desire to somehow stop the "dilution of culture and faith", which is also interpreted as "isolationism" and a "lack of desire to integrate". Such communities have been tolerated and allowed to "not integrate" in the West, such as the Amish in the US.

I suppose that precedent could be applied to some Muslim groups who are adamant about this, but I would draw the line at some very basic rights - anyone (daughter, wife, mother etc.) who wants to leave the community/not be governed by its rules should be allowed to do so, and violence of any kind should not be tolerated. I think that in the long run the isolation of such communities itself becomes a retardant to their growth. Just some thoughts.

THis is one the most Honest and frank comment ..

 

[Awesome]

I don't know but by far I've found many mosque going UK Muslims dangerously radicalized. None of my Pakistani friends even consider going to these mosques.

Very stereotypical.

Never mind that.What I was trying to say is if Muslims are really going to be lobbying for Sharia in UK it would further taint their image and the gang alleging Muslims of not integrating well with the mainstream would gain in numbers.

I'm not a fan of worrying about the image philosophy some Muslims have employed. Since 2001 thats all we seem to be doing for the benefit of Islam. It's pushed us into a defensive, cowering in the corner and apologetic role.

The simple thing is, in UK, everybody has their own arbitration courts for simple matters of property, inheritance, and marriage.

Every UK citizen has a right to accept arbitration from Somali court, Christian sects have all sorts of courts, Hindu court, tamil court... Now why the change of heart when the word ISLAMIC comes into it?

Don't you guys want 'secular' governments ?

That's besides the point. Thing is they are granting one set of rights to all these other people... Now why not Islam?

So at the end of the day - all I'm asking you is - what are the tangible benefits for the Muslim society from the Sharia ?

Equality.

Shariah won't be imposed. In arbitration both sides have to agree to shift the proceedings from civil courts to arbitration courts of their choosing.

 

[Awesome]

Just get the mosques registered. This wont be such a hard thing to do. All you need to do is tell the government that this is our gangs religious place and we want to get married here. The government registers the place as a 'religious place' and viola!! You're now husband and wife - legally! Such a hard thing to do ?

Dude, a better idea would be to just create a form (AKA Nikahnaama) which is acceptable in British law, where each of them state "I Do" and sign.

Anyway getting married is just one part of the story. There's divorce, there's the wife's rights over the husband, the husband's rights over the wife.

inheritance is a usual cause for dispute, there are adoption issues, things like that and so on...

If party A and party B agree to arbitration, then why not?

 

[Samudra]

Very stereotypical.

I'm not a fan of worrying about the image philosophy some Muslims have employed.

I don't care about all that. I merely speak my mind.

Every UK citizen has a right to accept arbitration from Somali court, Christian sects have all sorts of courts, Hindu court, tamil court... Now why the change of heart when the word ISLAMIC comes into it?

Sorry, I don't see Hindu courts and Tamil courts. Stop lying.

Dude, a better idea would be to just create a form (AKA Nikahnaama) which is acceptable in British law, where each of them state "I Do" and sign.

Tomorrow I'd want to marry according to the laws setup by the juju under the tree in Africa. There could be a hundred new sects springing up like me. The Parliament cant keep making laws for every sect. Why don't you just do your nikkahnaama in a mosque and have it registered ? I can register my jujus temple in the same way.

If party A and party B agree to arbitration, then why not?

The consent of individuals is not enough to break existing laws.

Equality.

Secularism. Lets not divide the society on religious lines.

 

[Samudra]

Goodpost AM. I'll reply after a while. Have to write down half a dissertation in three days.


EDIT : Okay, I'm taking a break. My semester results are out and I'm very happy about them.

People in developing nations are justified in looking forward to the Sharia. Whether Sharia delivers anything useful is subject to debate. If you were to ask me I'd say more religion means more backwardness - but I speak with the hindsight of having grown up in an environment where I was allowed to choose my faith, my god in a country that is rapidly developing. In the developing world neither is an average Muslim child spared his trips to the mosque nor does he have the resources to educate him selves. The indoctrination into faith is compulsory. (A Muslim baby, a Christian baby, a Hindu baby - does anybody see what I'm seeing?)

So, those poor souls are justified in the context of lack of a decent education. However, can we let people choose backwardness ? I have a handicap here. My understanding of the evolution of the sharia is minimal and I'm completely ignorant of how fundamental sharia is to the Mohammedans faith. My queries only yield a childish I-want-the-candy-too type answers.

At the end of the day the choice has to be made by the Muslim ummah anyway.

But I'm very very sure that Sharia is road to backwardness. I'd say the same about any legal system derived from religion.

I'm not sure how the Amish can be compared to the Muslims. I think any comparison of communities is flawed. The Muslims are larger in number, many are impoverished and need development. The Amish for instance don't need to economically prosper. Their ways of life almost totally isolate themselves from the mainstream society. The Muslims, however need to prosper - they need to live in a society.

Is isolation in manner - legal or other, affordable in this modern world?

1400 years is a long time to leave things unchanged. I hope and pray more Muslims come out against the Sharia.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Goodpost AM. I'll reply after a while. Have to write down half a dissertation in three days.


EDIT : Okay, I'm taking a break. My semester results are out and I'm very happy about them.

People in developing nations are justified in looking forward to the Sharia. Whether Sharia delivers anything useful is subject to debate. If you were to ask me I'd say more religion means more backwardness - but I speak with the hindsight of having grown up in an environment where I was allowed to choose my faith, my god in a country that is rapidly developing. In the developing world neither is an average Muslim child spared his trips to the mosque nor does he have the resources to educate him selves. The indoctrination into faith is compulsory. (A Muslim baby, a Christian baby, a Hindu baby - does anybody see what I'm seeing?)

So, those poor souls are justified in the context of lack of a decent education. However, can we let people choose backwardness ? I have a handicap here. My understanding of the evolution of the sharia is minimal and I'm completely ignorant of how fundamental sharia is to the Mohammedans faith. My queries only yield a childish I-want-the-candy-too type answers.

At the end of the day the choice has to be made by the Muslim ummah anyway.

But I'm very very sure that Sharia is road to backwardness. I'd say the same about any legal system derived from religion.

I'm not sure how the Amish can be compared to the Muslims. I think any comparison of communities is flawed. The Muslims are larger in number, many are impoverished and need development. The Amish for instance don't need to economically prosper. Their ways of life almost totally isolate themselves from the mainstream society. The Muslims, however need to prosper - they need to live in a society.

Is isolation in manner - legal or other, affordable in this modern world?

1400 years is a long time to leave things unchanged. I hope and pray more Muslims come out against the Sharia.

I also wish more hindus come against hindutva thugs.

 

[roadrunner]

I also wish more hindus come against hindutva thugs.

Simple, yet effective

 

[Flintlock]

I also wish more hindus come against hindutva thugs.

They are. The mainstream (and hindu dominated) media is waging open war against the hindutva movement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Samudra,

IN the context of the developing Muslim world, people need to be able to choose what they feel fulfills their needs - you and I cannot dictate to them based on what we would consider inviting "backwardness". To do so only sparks fires of hatred and resentment. Look at the Taliban experience in Afghanistan for example - intolerant, autocratic oppressive regime that it was, it was invited in with open arms by the people of Afghanistan because of the conditions that existed. Would they still be in control now had the US not invaded? Probably, and the Afghans would be getting pretty sick and tired of them as well. It might take a generation or two, but they would eventually have to change. Iran is a good example of society, and to some extent the regime, moderating over time. In Iran's case society has moderated much faster than the regime, and pretty soon things will boil over if the regime does not make concessions, but it is a process best left to the people of a nation to undertake, with only subtle support and encouragement/engagement by the rest of the world.

The comparison of the Amish was not with the "entire Muslim world", but with the much smaller sections of Muslim communities in the West. I often get the feeling that Indians and Westerners, despite knowing better, continue to lump "all Muslims" in when one starts talking about issues such as these. Realize that it is small segments within Muslim communities abroad that are the most adamant about Shariah, and Muslims abroad tend to be economically better off, so "economic independence" would not be a major issue. Now I am not personally in favor of such a move, because it causes a lot of complications and confusion. For example, a "Shariah community member" and a "regular citizen" have a dispute, whose law applies? What if in a dispute within the community, one of the parties decides to revoke their "shariah rights"?

I think one has to analyze what exactly people demanding Shariah want, and see if is even workable, since a "Shariah community" will probably not be isolated like the Amish are, and the everyday interaction with "non-Shariah" members will raise frequent situations in which "Shariah vs Non-Shariah" law comes into conflict.

Congrats on your semester results.

 

[Flintlock]

Samudra,

IN the context of the developing Muslim world, people need to be able to choose what they feel fulfills their needs - you and I cannot dictate to them based on what we would consider inviting "backwardness". To do so only sparks fires of hatred and resentment. Look at the Taliban experience in Afghanistan for example - intolerant, autocratic oppressive regime that it was, it was invited in with open arms by the people of Afghanistan because of the conditions that existed. Would they still be in control now had the US not invaded? Probably, and the Afghans would be getting pretty sick and tired of them as well. It might take a generation or two, but they would eventually have to change. Iran is a good example of society, and to some extent the regime, moderating over time. In Iran's case society has moderated much faster than the regime, and pretty soon things will boil over if the regime does not make concessions, but it is a process best left to the people of a nation to undertake, with only subtle support and encouragement/engagement by the rest of the world.

Great post.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

i don't get this, why are people aligning sharia law with the taliban? the taliban were created as something to destabilize afghan government. they have follow a simple version of islam.
we can essentially break down their practices to this, praying salat(namaz), memorizing quran(hifzh), and third one everyone here knows(ak-47). They don't have any ties with deobandi schools. their so-called sharia rules are actually just rulings that originate from their tribal practices, nothing else.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

Samudra,
you and I cannot dictate to them based on what we would consider inviting "backwardness". To do so only sparks fires of hatred and resentment.

thank you for clearing that up! not everyone has the same thoughts on values or morals of society. just because someone thinks islamic law is backwards doesn't mean it's backwards to the rest of the world.