'Girls over 10 or 12 years are eligible for marriage'

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Britain has allowed it already, to the chagrin of many of its citizens,

(Three ideas, in three separate posts, cause this is a huge issue and many things to touch on)

1. Doesn't British law still hold jurisdiction or precedence or authority in many cases especially the extreme? I don't believe the Muslim people are given COMPLETE authority to handle all of their justice.

And of course any case where their law interferes with someone of a different belief set or an individual or group that does not share Sharia is stricken down as well.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with pretty much all you have said, and am against any group of people having their own set of laws, rules, or justice. I just seek for more specifics before this gets way out of hand or misconstrued.

[Daradon]

2. What bugs me about Sharia law (well besides most of it's laws) being exported and brought to other nations is that, there must be SOME reason why these people left their homeland to begin with. Usually it DOES have to do with persecution or lack of freedoms. Don't these people see that these laws are what leads to those problems in the first place?

Secondly, sometimes it just has to do with wanting a better life monetarily. Not necessarily TV's and cell phones and all the gadgets, but the ability to feed and clothe and house oneself better. Don't they also realize it's those same laws that hamper those abilities?

Lastly, it's just WRONG to have one set of people governed or ruled or given justice than a another set of people in the same country. If are people are equal, then all must be equal under the law. Yes they can decide how to live their lives, but the basic freedoms must all be the same.

I'm about as tolerant as you get, but there is something flawed in a system that allows a certain group of people to behave or judge themselves one way EVEN IF they are only doing it within their community, and has a separate set of rules for the rest.

[Daradon]

3. Lastly, the cartoon in question. I can certainly see how it would be offensive to many people. Both muslims and non-muslims. It paints with too large a brush and makes generalizations.

I will agree however, that in this point in time, there is more underlying truth to that cartoon than similar ones blasting other religions or philsophies. As Cheese stated, there is a LARGE section of that community, especialy in other countries, that do think in that way. Maybe not the prophet himself, but many people following him, and claiming to represent him.

There are human rights abuses and cases that come out from muslim nations and camps every day about things we know to be wrong and would never allow here.

However, we forget, most religions and cultures went through similar times. So should we combat this with hostility and ridicule like the cartoon, or should we seek better methods?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Come on now folks...lets all just get along shall we?
This article is about a specific country and the fact that millions of these people live and believe that Sharia law is the way it should be, including the fact that young girls can be married to much older men. This country is not alone. There are millions of people who live and work under Sharia law.
Muslims are working very hard to bring their version of law into every country they reside in. Britain has allowed it already, to the chagrin of many of its citizens, and the Muslims are working very hard to bring it home to your favorite place...Canada. Now these nice folks are good hard working people. They make excellent food, are generally decent people, but believe that they should not have to live under the laws of the countries they reside in.

Many Muslims believe that because Canada is a secular country, its secular legal system makes it difficult for them to govern themselves by the personal laws of their own religion.
Sharia in Canada

Is it a stretch to believe that once the Muslim population exceeds that of the ROC that Sharia law might become the flavour for all? Maybe not, and I am NOT suggesting it will...just giving food for thought and discussion.
Do Muslims prefer to live under jurisdictional law or do they prefer their own system...a theocracy that all should be bound to?

I expect better than this from you Cheese. I think your post is very misleading and I hope people take the opportunity to look at the link you provided on Sharia Law in Canada. It provides a little more balance than you do.

Your post, and many of the posts that intentionally or not seem to portray Islam in a negative light share one characteristic. They portray Muslims as one homogeneous group that all share the same values and all interpret the Koran in the same way.

You know this is not the case and you know there is no universal Sharia Law 'code' that is accepted by all Muslims. The example provided in the original article linked to in this thread talks about interpretation of Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia, not the whole Muslim world, and as the article also notes but no one mentions, there are human right groups within that country trying to have underage marriage banned.

That group may not be successful but it illustrates that the issue is far from settled in the Muslim world and it demonstrates that things are changing in the Muslim world.

I know it is not the case with Cheese's posts, but a common theme in topics such as this one is how superior Western religion or Western culture is compared to Muslim religion. There invariably is a certain smugness in these posts. "We don't oppress women like the Muslims do".

True enough in most cases, but I'm surprised we feel we can brag. The dominant Western religion still believes it has a right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies (abortion), which is interesting. It also believes it has a right to ban divorce and remarriage.

Wow, those Muslims sure are backwards - they let their church tell them how to live!

I've already noted that a number of 'Western' religions also support underage marriage and polygamy, so again it is difficult for us to claim the moral high ground here when it would seem that the question is not settled even in certain Christian religions.

I'm not defending the treatment of women in the Muslim world or under Sharia law but I do encourage everyone to recognize that, like every culture and religion, Muslim values are constantly being reviewed, debated, and changed. The status of women can and I believe will evole in the Muslim world, just as it continues to evole in the Western world. It wasn't that long ago that that striking a woman was considered acceptable behaviour in the West, and that women in the workplace was unusual. It wasn't long ago that women were given the right to vote.

Unlike Cheese, I don't feel (or fear) that the Muslims of this world want to impose Sharia Law on me but I guess that trying to understand them isn't as easy as fear mongering.

[transplant99]

Your post, and many of the posts that intentionally or not seem to portray Islam in a negative light share one characteristic. They portray Muslims as one homogeneous group that all share the same values and all interpret the Koran in the same way.

Dont you often do something quite similar in regards to Christianity? As in...lump all of them together.

In fact in the very same post...

The dominant Western religion still believes it has a right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies (abortion), which is interesting. It also believes it has a right to ban divorce and remarriage.

Hmmm...interesting that what you state the religion "thinks it can do"....it really cannot, whereas what Sharia law states actually DOES occur.

just a weird contradiction on your part IMO.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

There are human rights abuses and cases that come out from muslim nations and camps every day about things we know to be wrong and would never allow here.

However, we forget, most religions and cultures went through similar times. So should we combat this with hostility and ridicule like the cartoon, or should we seek better methods?

Cartoons and humour are very effective at drawing attention to a topics. I am offended when a Christian comic shows God/Jesus in a bad light but, I'm ok with humour directed at Christian prophets. They are just men.

The reason why such marriages exist as lawful under Muslim law is that their founding prophet practiced and condoned child brides. Just like the founding prophet in Mormonism endorsed and practiced polygamy and it is still an issue for fundamentalist within their religion today.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

3. Lastly, the cartoon in question. I can certainly see how it would be offensive to many people. Both muslims and non-muslims. It paints with too large a brush and makes generalizations.

Does it though?

Is the cartoon speaking about all Muslims? Or just Mohammed?

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

According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad.[1][3][4] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[3] She stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated.[1][3][4][5][6][7]

So is the cartoon directed at all Muslims? Or just Mohammed? Or maybe directly at people who use Mohammed's having a child bride as justification of their actions in modern times?

I don't think the cartoon necessarily has to be against all Muslims.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think the cartoon necessarily has to be against all Muslims.

Of course the intent of the cartoon can be debated and we may never know. As people debating the subject we are trying to look at it from all sides. But most people don't do this. I think we can all agree how most would take it. Most will take it as all Muslims as a group, whether they believe in what the cartoon is saying or are against it. That's the idea and message they will get from it.

We know that most Muslims would probably get very angry about the cartoon no matter how strict or liberal their beliefs are. We also know there are many who don't know much about the faith who will agree with it or see it as a true generalization.

I don't think it has to be against all Muslims either (and that's one of the reasons it doesn't offend me personally), but most people, on all sides of the argument will probably see it like that. (As already shown by some of the responses.)

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Daradon

(Three ideas, in three separate posts, cause this is a huge issue and many things to touch on)

1. Doesn't British law still hold jurisdiction or precedence or authority in many cases especially the extreme? I don't believe the Muslim people are given COMPLETE authority to handle all of their justice.

And of course any case where their law interferes with someone of a different belief set or an individual or group that does not share Sharia is stricken down as well.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with pretty much all you have said, and am against any group of people having their own set of laws, rules, or justice. I just seek for more specifics before this gets way out of hand or misconstrued.

Many articles posted on what is sanctioned in Britain.

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.



Is this what we call "A foot in the door?"Yes its only for Muslims, and yes they must agree to be bound by these laws, but is there a large segment of Islamic clerics along with their idolators who believe that Sharia law is the "only way"? Is it a stretch?


"Is it a stretch to believe that once the Muslim population exceeds that of the ROC that Sharia law might become the flavour for all? Maybe not, and I am NOT suggesting it will...just giving food for thought and discussion.
Do Muslims prefer to live under jurisdictional law or do they prefer their own system...a theocracy that all should be bound to?"

Based on what is happening in England, France, parts of Germany and yes here in Canada, Id think that Sharia law is definately part of the fabric that Muslims prefer to live under. Is that something you as a non-Muslim can live with?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Cartoons and humour are very effective at drawing attention to a topics. I am offended when a Christian comic shows God/Jesus in a bad light but, I'm ok with humour directed at Christian prophets. They are just men.

Well that's where you draw your line, I think you would agree people can decide what is offensive to them to and it may be more or less.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why such marriages exist as lawful under Muslim law is that their founding prophet practiced and condoned child brides. Just like the founding prophet in Mormonism endorsed and practiced polygamy and it is still an issue for fundamentalist within their religion today.

Not disagreeing with you, but I think there are some, even many still within the religion that see that as outdated. The cartoon could offend them, when the best thing we could do with them is help them moderate their own religion. Instead this cartoon probably only angers them and alienates them from us.

I do not find the cartoon offensive myself. And not because it's not my religion, but because I think it does say something, and because I am for free speech.

I am only questioning the cartoons value. I think it may do more harm than good.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

That's all I was looking for, and I am assuming that 'domestic violence' has a very limited meaning. (Not condoning it, I'm just assuming any case that has a larger crime (abuse or worse) would probably still be tried differently. As well, anyone coming forward that decides they don't want to be tried under that law, would probably have the right to do so.

Now I know it's more complicated than that. Victims often feel isolated and will be shunned or worse so that's not always the best option. I'm just trying to get the facts straight on the legal side.


As far as how I feel about all that, perhaps you missed my second post (and that's why I divided them up, cause in this one I was looking for information) but I am wholy against any form of Sharia law or self governance by another people. If you choose to be part of a society you choose to be part of it's laws and to a certain extent it's morals (esp. when it comes to freedoms and right).

I don't FEAR being put under Sharia law, or that it may one day come into conflict with my lifestyle. I just feel everyone should be treated the same way, and I do feel that much of Sharia law infringes on a persons (most especially a females) rights and freedoms. These are rights and freedoms I believe all should have, anywhere. So I will stick up for them in my own country.

To sum up, it's less of fear of losing my own lifestyle, and more to promote fairness and freedom for those who dont' have it, as well as the belief that all should be treated equal under the law.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Nice dodge there Jane. Way to claim you were misunderstood. And since you've deleted the photo you posted, the one portraying the prophet Mohammed as having sex with a child, maybe some readers of this thread will believe your claim.

And while I understand that the Wild Rose Party doesn't support marriage to 10 year olds, but to be clear, does the Party support the depiction of the prophet Mohammed in the picture you posted?

This post is hilarious.. There was no picture of mohammed sleeping with a child. It was one adult sized lego on top of another adult sized lego. Way to stretch the truth by blowing things out of porportion. I suppose thats typical of people fight for justice for Religion. Just to make a point I'm reposting that pic when I get home. Freedom of speech rules.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I expect better than this from you Cheese. I think your post is very misleading and I hope people take the opportunity to look at the link you provided on Sharia Law in Canada. It provides a little more balance than you do.

Your post, and many of the posts that intentionally or not seem to portray Islam in a negative light share one characteristic. They portray Muslims as one homogeneous group that all share the same values and all interpret the Koran in the same way.

You know this is not the case and you know there is no universal Sharia Law 'code' that is accepted by all Muslims. The example provided in the original article linked to in this thread talks about interpretation of Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia, not the whole Muslim world, and as the article also notes but no one mentions, there are human right groups within that country trying to have underage marriage banned.

That group may not be successful but it illustrates that the issue is far from settled in the Muslim world and it demonstrates that things are changing in the Muslim world.

I know it is not the case with Cheese's posts, but a common theme in topics such as this one is how superior Western religion or Western culture is compared to Muslim religion. There invariably is a certain smugness in these posts. "We don't oppress women like the Muslims do".

True enough in most cases, but I'm surprised we feel we can brag. The dominant Western religion still believes it has a right to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies (abortion), which is interesting. It also believes it has a right to ban divorce and remarriage.

Wow, those Muslims sure are backwards - they let their church tell them how to live!

I've already noted that a number of 'Western' religions also support underage marriage and polygamy, so again it is difficult for us to claim the moral high ground here when it would seem that the question is not settled even in certain Christian religions.

I'm not defending the treatment of women in the Muslim world or under Sharia law but I do encourage everyone to recognize that, like every culture and religion, Muslim values are constantly being reviewed, debated, and changed. The status of women can and I believe will evole in the Muslim world, just as it continues to evole in the Western world. It wasn't that long ago that that striking a woman was considered acceptable behaviour in the West, and that women in the workplace was unusual. It wasn't long ago that women were given the right to vote.

Unlike Cheese, I don't feel (or fear) that the Muslims of this world want to impose Sharia Law on me but I guess that trying to understand them isn't as easy as fear mongering.

Thanks longsuffering. First off I dont paint all Muslims with the same brush...just as I dont paint all Christians the same. Each group has their fanatics.
I am simply bringing out the FACT that "most" Muslims prefer to live under Sharia law. Is that a big issue? Maybe not for Muslims, but what if we stretch that to include some form of Christian law within the Canadian fabric? If Sharia is acceptable why not some form of Hasidic Jewish law? At what point does Canada or any other country change from a Democracy to a Theocracy? I didnt suggest Muslims were backwards...many scientific advancements came from that camp and there are many decent people who are part of the religion. Its when you mix "your" religion with my politics I get offended. I get more offended when a religion abuses children.
If you are a Muslim and you dont agree with these things I suggest that your group begins a campaign to disassociate yourselves by taking out advertisements and the like to suggest so. Otherwise the brush will inadvertently paint you all the same color....and that is religion of any stripe.

[photon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Just to make a point I'm reposting that pic when I get home. Freedom of speech rules.

I think the point has been made, ultimately it's intended to be a picture of a guy having sex with a child (though very very abstract).

If the intent of whoever made the picture was to promote discussion, it's achieved its goal, no need to re-post it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

This post is hilarious.. There was no picture of mohammed sleeping with a child. It was one adult sized lego on top of another adult sized lego. Way to stretch the truth by blowing things out of porportion. I suppose thats typical of people fight for justice for Religion. Just to make a point I'm reposting that pic when I get home. Freedom of speech rules.

I quoted this to try and make sure you read it again.

It was Lego. Get over it.

I actually thought it was hilarious.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Nice dodge there Jane. Way to claim you were misunderstood. And since you've deleted the photo you posted, the one portraying the prophet Mohammed as having sex with a child, maybe some readers of this thread will believe your claim.

And while I understand that the Wild Rose Party doesn't support marriage to 10 year olds, but to be clear, does the Party support the depiction of the prophet Mohammed in the picture you posted?

Well, it doesn't help that influential Muslim clerics actually bolster the claim that Mohammed was a pedophile.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by photon

I think the point has been made, ultimately it's intended to be a picture of a guy having sex with a child (though very very abstract).

If the intent of whoever made the picture was to promote discussion, it's achieved its goal, no need to re-post it.

I disagree, it only said there was a 6 year old Ashya (sp?) included in every set. There were 23 wives in total. I guess its neither here nor there, I just get annoyed when people blow satire out of proportion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Dont you often do something quite similar in regards to Christianity? As in...lump all of them together.

In fact in the very same post...



Hmmm...interesting that what you state the religion "thinks it can do"....it really cannot, whereas what Sharia law states actually DOES occur.

just a weird contradiction on your part IMO.

Not to mention that abortion can be and has been given a secular humanist slant. It's not a religious argument anymore.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Many articles posted on what is sanctioned in Britain.

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Is this what we call "A foot in the door?"Yes its only for Muslims, and yes they must agree to be bound by these laws, but is there a large segment of Islamic clerics along with their idolators who believe that Sharia law is the "only way"? Is it a stretch?

Based on what is happening in England, France, parts of Germany and yes here in Canada, Id think that Sharia law is definitely part of the fabric that Muslims prefer to live under. Is that something you as a non-Muslim can live with?

Great post Cheese. There is a lot to think about here.

There are many issues at play.

What Sharia Laws are being interpreted, by whom, and how are they being enforced? Should Muslims get special treatment? As you ask can I, as a non-Muslim live with it?

Let's highlight that in the case of Britain, as your information says rulings are made by 5 sharia courts and that the courts are granted power (effectively) by the people agreeing to be bound by the courts. Presumably each of these courts have one or more clerics interpreting sharia law.

Unless I misread your post, Sharia Law is not being forced on anyone. Am I right to that point?

At the risk of being an ASS, I'm assuming that the interpretation of Sharia Law in these courts is wholly different than the interpretation of Sharia Law by Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh (the cleric in the original linked article), so personally, under these circumstances, just as I do not object to aboriginal justice here in Canada under certain defined limitations, I don't object to Sharia Law in certain instances and with the agreement of ALL parties.

I wonder whether the British Sharia court allows marriage to 8, 10, 12 year old girls? I honestly don't know but I doubt it.

For that matter, do most Muslim clerics (outside Britain) support the marriage of girls under the age of consent? The article suggests they do but I wonder? Do most Muslims support these marriages? I lived and worked with Muslims for 8 years in Yemen and Central Asia and I don't believe that any of the Muslims I've met would support these tyoes of marriages. What is the incidence of these marriages in Islam? Before we accept the premise that all Muslims are 10 year old marrying child abusers, do we have enough information to develop an informed opinion?

What should we believe? Do I believe an article from the Times of India that really provides no context on the scope of the issue, or do I form an opinion based on personal, first hand observations and interactions with real people?

For all most readers of the original article KNOW (for a fact), the incidence of underage marriage in Islam is no more than it is in Texas. I don't know what the actual incidence is, but I don't accept an internet (or newspaper) source as the final word on the subject as some here seem to.

[photon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I disagree, it only said there was a 6 year old Ashya (sp?) included in every set. There were 23 wives in total. I guess its neither here nor there, I just get annoyed when people blow satire out of proportion.

Heh, that's a pretty fine distinction.

I agree about blowing out of proportion though.