Interesting developments in the progress of Sharia law across the western world. If you thought it could never happen here, better think again. U.K. courts now routinely enforce Sharia court judgments in civil and family law cases in four U.K. cities with two more such courts under development in Glasgow and Edinburgh, according to a report in the TimesOnline.
It is entertaining to speculate how Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill would respond to an appeal from a Sharia-law arbitral decision refusing to allow a Muslim woman to divorce her husband over his taking an additional wife. Oh, you thought the ramifications of this story are isolated to the U.K.? Better think again. More at The Schulzke Brief.
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Kurt, I’ve long enjoyed many of your blog entries here. Very good work.
That being said, Why shouldn’t there be Sharia Law and Sharia Courts in the United States?
Are we a pluralistic society or are we not?
Or does the Constitution of the United States not apply to Muslims?
You tell me how a devout Muslim is expected to be guaranteed the “pursuit of happiness” outside of a Sharia Court System that understands him/her and his/her culture?
Before you say, hey, we’d have to do that for every religion that comes along, wait a minute.
This is the 2nd largest religion in the world, with something like 1.2 BILLION people that practice it, almost equal to Christianity with 1.5 BILLION, and probably growing quite a bit faster.
America could learn something from the Muslims already living in this country.
Most of them are far more moral than most of “us” are and are far better citizens.
Sharia Law in the US? No thanks. This is a secular society of many cultures and the religions have no business handing out punishments such as fines, jail time, or death.
That is why we have local, state, and federal court systems. Sharia Law would be considered unconstitutional anyway.
-Dale-
John –
I asked the question and said it’s on the way. I didn’t make a judgment as to whether it is a good idea.
Dale –
There’s nothing unconstitutional about two parties agreeing to follow a private law between themselves as to civil matters. Your reference to “jail time or death” goes beyond the scope of the post and of Sharia’s current applicability in the U.K. and U.S.
Get ready, ’cause it’s there and here.
K
Get ready, ’cause it’s there and here.
K
>>>GOOD.
Part of God’s reclamation project on the earth.
I’d rather live with devout Muslims than with the pagans with which I share most of the USA with now.
Adherents to Sharia have been pushing things from every side. Cab drivers refusing customers with alcohol or dogs, cashiers refusing to ring up pork, factory workers demanding prayer breaks, assembly line workers refusing to wear company uniforms (burqa’s and similar dress are a safety issue). In most of these cases the employers simply gave in and worked something out. Recently in St Cloud, Minnesota, about 30 miles from where the RNC was held, a judge ordered Hormel to accommodate Muslim employees who didn’t want to handle pork products. This in a plant who’s purpose is processing chicken and pork and where employees are required, before being hired, to sign a statement that they understand that the plant includes pork products and that they may be required to handle them.
In Britain Islam is exempt from the application of the new hate crime legislation. Christian organizations that enforce Biblical mandates for their employees have been successfully sued and fined- perhaps facing prison time- for terminating emloyees who are engaged in inappropriate activities. The same is happening in Canada. The Muslims can do what they want, the Christians cannot. Why the different treatment? Because the authorities know if they don’t support sharia law they would pay in blood. And that is the only reason why Muslims are exempt.
“Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.”
This raises a very interesting issue. Islam is the only religion, that I’m aware of, that includes government as part of itself. Will this effectively put British government in the position of enforcing a religion on people? Abiding by their religion was voluntary, at least from a legal standpoint per above quote, will it no longer be? Once a Muslim, always a Muslim?
Crusty –
This is a serious question. One of the reasons that some Muslims have left Sharia-dominated countries is precisely to escape Sharia law. If Sharia law is suddenly available in your own neighborhood, will any Muslim feel free not to “agree” to its application in civil matters? Or will local extremists “hard-sell” Sharia to those individuals.
It’s exactly the same argument that has been made against allowing the FLDS to run their own affairs. They don’t use Sharia, but in some ways, their approach to religious observance — sort of “all or get outta town” — is similar.
And now I’m going to hunker down in a bunker ’cause I hear some incoming.
Exactly.
I wouldn’t even want this for Christianity. Talking about power corrupting…
Kurt,
How long do you think the Muslims of the UK will be satisfied with civil Sharia law before they want criminal Sharia law too?
To discuss fines, jail, and death is therefor not outside the scope of the discussion.
-Dale-
Also, what if you are a Muslim but don’t want to be bound by Sharia? Do you have the option of saying thanks but no thanks I’d rather have a civil divorce than a muslim divorce?
Two people can agree to anything as long as they both agree. If one doesn’t agree then it doesn’t work. If they both agree then why does it need be recognized by the courts at all?
There are major Constitutional problems here…
-Dale-
Sharia law? Religious law? Nothing new in that. We already live under Judeo/Christian laws in mufti. If we’re going to be a pluralistic society, then different groups should be able to have their own laws and rules. This includes the FLDS.
But, this just begs the question: Who the hell decided that a pluralistic society was the best form of society? Diversity is not our strength; it is our weakness. Check out our violent crime rate in diverse U.S. cities. The U.S. is disintegrating.
Okay, you got me started. Look, the so-called “melting pot” model which is used to justify this mess of a pluralistic society, was never really a melting pot of genetically different peoples. It was a melting pot of nationalities. There were no major genetic differences between the Irish, English, French, Germans, Swedes, et al. The present version of the melting pot is very different and will lead to the end of America as we once knew it.
To see what America will look like in 100 years, if immigration trends continue, visit some highly “diverse” countries such as Brazil or India. Every year that passes gets a little more third world. A little bit more chaos.
My view is that it’s perfectly fine to have separate civil laws, and separate government for all intents and purposes so long as you live separately and don’t force the rest of society to bend over backwards for you. That’s the difference between the FLDS and the Muslims in this country. The FLDS live physically apart in their own towns and communities. They aren’t bothering anyone, and just want to be left alone.
The Muslims on the other hand want special treatment right in the midst of us, and we have to put up with it. I think it’s best actually, if ethnic groups and religious groups just live in their own separate places.
One thing that should be considered here is that until the 2oth century, the civil government was not considered the only sphere of law in the United States. For instance, the church governed marriage for many centuries. In fact, the Bible speaks to inheritance as does the Koran and its ancillary documents. Evil children are not to inherit according to the Bible. Plus, dowry is to be paid for wives and competently increased by husbands on behalf of wives
Moreover, businessmen had their own “courts” to decide disputes well into the 20th century.
Politics and civil government did not have sovereignty over every sphere of “law”. In my opinion, civil law and politics have corrupted our society through domination.
Let’s take marriage and inheritance. In my opinion, both are religious. The Bible lays out law for both. So does the Koran, though, of course, I consider the Koran to be heretical. Regardless, neither the Bible nor the Koran is as evil in my eyes as the courts of secular humanism. Family and probate courts are corrupt and attended by jackal “service” providers which rape and pillage the family.
Just remember when you are judging Sharia law that Biblical Law favored sons (unless they were unworthy) and reconciliation of marriages.
One correction, I do not consider Biblical law as evil at all. I consider it to be Sovereign. The Koran and it’s ancillary documents are different. It does contain evil–such as it’s approval of the family killing family members. The Bible does not allow this. No one under Biblical law can be executed without due process and judgment by an objective body. The Koran allows honor killings which are an affront to God under the 1st and 6th Commandments.
Jerri, a critical difference in what you’re talking about regarding historical issues and what’s taking place in the UK is that the former was a voluntary opt-in system. If you were a Christian then you chose to abide by Christian principles and you could, in most cases, choose to opt out. The problem in the UK is that under this new system many Muslims will not have the option to opt-out.
There has been, in the UK, US, Germany, and other western nations an opt-in for Muslims. They could choose to abide by Sharia if they wanted (but if that went against civil laws then they’d face a tough choice.) It was voluntary. The new situation in the UK removes the voluntary aspect.
I could be wrong, but I read the Times story to say that at least on a theoretical level, Sharia is still “voluntary”. How many U.K. Muslims in cities that have Sharia courts will, practically speaking, feel free to opt out?
How often do you think Sharia law is voluntary for the women in the United States (and the U.K, for that matter) who want to escape forced, arranged marriages, or for the young Muslim sisters in Dallas who were murdered by their father because they wore western dress?
Where Sharia or Islam become the law, that nation or part of a nation is now Islam “territory.” Where Muslims become dominant (and they are, here and now, by force of fear) Christians and Jews soon become victims of dhimmitude, a second class status where they have no rights; they literally do not. (Ask Lebanese Christians about that.) They pay exhorbitant taxes, and they are subjected to physical violence by individual Muslims without legal recourse. Everything imaginable is done to reduce them to a constant state of fear.
Muslims are reproducing at a rate many times that of Christians and Jews. Just in terms of numbers, it is only a matter of time.
Once they are in control, there will be no opting out. And we are about to elect someone to the White House the Islamic nations endorse. Heaven help us.
Crusty: “Once a Muslim, always a Muslim?” Yes, that is how it is. If a Muslim becomes Christian, or atheist, or anything other than Islam, he or she is an infidel, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali can tell you what that is like. You are hunted down wherever you are. Unless, of course, you are only a Christian for purposes of cover — for your own physical protection, or to promote the cause of Islam, such as to get elected to public office. Then that is an honorable thing to do, a sacrifice for Islam.