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

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Thats rediculous though, why would we allow them to import their own rules that will allow them to segregate themselves from mainstream society? Just because they had a lack of freedom back home doesnt mean we should tolerate it here.

I'm not saying we should, I'm saying we shouldn't. Dunno if you're misreading me or talking about their ideas and not mine...

If you were talking about them, I was simply trying to show why they might be trying to import them, not that it was right to.

I'm saying all rights and freedoms should be the same across the board, I don't know how much more clear I can make that.

All should be judged by the same laws.

[octothorp]

Good links, Cheese.

Sharia law was originally designed to be evolvable to adapt to new ideas and discourse. And for a while during the height of Islamic Intellectualism, it was responsible for developing a lot of key concepts that are now fundamental principles in our own laws. Classic Sharia Law was significantly more fair than the systems in use in europe during the time. But no matter how evolvable you make your legal system, if it's ultimately rooted in a religious text then it can only evolve so far. In the last 200 years, western law has gone through a radical reinterpretation of human rights and freedoms; Sharia law did not evolve, the once generous rights and freedoms that it allowed were now incredibly strict in comparison to that of western nations.
To their credit, a lot of predominantly Muslim nations have realized this, and adopted constitutions; in most countries, Sharia law exists simply for religious matters like marriage and inheritance. Really, only Saudi Arabia and Iran exist as major nations that use a form of Sharia law for all legal decisions.

All of this really begs the question: if so much of the Muslim world is actually moving away from Sharia law, why are some Canadian and British politicians viewing it as a valid addition to the legal system?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'm not saying we should, I'm saying we shouldn't. Dunno if you're misreading me or talking about their ideas and not mine...

If you were talking about them, I was simply trying to show why they might be trying to import them, not that it was right to.

I'm saying all rights and freedoms should be the same across the board, I don't know how much more clear I can make that.

All should be judged by the same laws.

I mistook your position..

[peter12]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Thanks for the clarifiication - Really.

So what do you propose 'we' do? How would 'we' prevent an Islamic reformation?

The Western world at some point has to stand up for its ideals in the face of growing and increasingly dangerous Islamic radicalism. Does this preclude a violent confrontation at some point? I think we are well into that stage.

I don't want to be so reductionist to say that "they hate us for our freedoms." That's mostly nonsense. I don't see the rise of radical Islamist sects around the globe as a reaction against western liberalism, nor do I see it as a backlash for American economic dominance. It's the emergent of a system of belief directly opposed to western liberalism, with the ultimate goal of replacing liberalism with a theocratic caliphate.

At some point, liberals (generally all westerners share some tenet of liberalism) must realize that by living in a democracy, you shed many previous forms of self-identification, such as race and religion. Here, the only thing you have (and it amounts to everything) are ideas. The assumption is that the differences between these ideas is settled freely and democratically. The disturbing rise of Islamic fundamentalism is expressly dedicated to tearing these assumptions apart and replacing them with monolithic religion.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Western world at some point has to stand up for its ideals in the face of growing and increasingly dangerous Islamic radicalism. Does this preclude a violent confrontation at some point? I think we are well into that stage.

I don't want to be so reductionist to say that "they hate us for our freedoms." That's mostly nonsense. I don't see the rise of radical Islamist sects around the globe as a reaction against western liberalism, nor do I see it as a backlash for American economic dominance. It's the emergent of a system of belief directly opposed to western liberalism, with the ultimate goal of replacing liberalism with a theocratic caliphate.

At some point, liberals (generally all westerners share some tenet of liberalism) must realize that by living in a democracy, you shed many previous forms of self-identification, such as race and religion. Here, the only thing you have (and it amounts to everything) are ideas. The assumption is that the differences between these ideas is settled freely and democratically. The disturbing rise of Islamic fundamentalism is expressly dedicated to tearing these assumptions apart and replacing them with monolithic religion.

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification. Lots of thought provoking stuff.

I have to admit to still being unclear about what you feel the cause of increased Islamic radicalization is. I agree that they don't hate us for our freedoms. How much, if at all, do you think historical Western support of corrupt regimes and/or US and US supported military action against Arab and Muslim countries and citizens has played a role in fueling the radicalization fire?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Excellent. Thanks for the clarification. Lots of thought provoking stuff.

I have to admit to still being unclear about what you feel the cause of increased Islamic radicalization is. I agree that they don't hate us for our freedoms. How much, if at all, do you think historical Western support of corrupt regimes and/or US and US supported military action against Arab and Muslim countries and citizens has played a role in fueling the radicalization fire?

Certainly, Western governments have done terrible things. I think it would make sense to believe that it was a cause of radicalization, if you saw this view mainly being supported solely by the poor and oppressed. In fact, if you adjust for education/wealth, there is a greater expression of jihadism/radicalism among the elites of the Muslim world.

Furthermore, there is nothing nationalist about the Islamist cause. There is something rational about nationalist groups fighting for independence. Groups, like the IRA, had a clear set of goals, which could be met by mediation and negotiation. The nature of Islamism is global in nature. Any negotiation, to an Islamist, is a deviation from their ultimate goals. In fact by their most radical, mediation is apostasy and a criminal sin.

I would disagree on some level with the absolute value of atheism of some of the above posters, but I would certainly argue that this in some way has to do with western secularization. We don't believe that religious beliefs have any coercive role to play in politics, Islamists do.

Certainly, we have our own radicals, but they are WELL constrained by society and the law.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by First Lady

You are trying to portray Sharia law as some obscure practice that only effects a small number who partake in it; which is BS.

If I did, it was unintentional. Where did I say that? I did point out that Sharia law in Britain was considerably different that Sharia law in Saudi Arabia and I admit to suggesting that as currently structured (with specific restrictions in place) the British system of allowing Sharia law to be practiced, with the agreement of all parties, is acceptable to me.

I also said that I knew Muslim women who had no objection to living under Sharia law, at least as Sharia law is practiced in their community. Not all practitioners of Sharia law (clerics) would permit these ladies to enjoy the same 'freedom' they enjoyed in the area of Yemen I was in, which I noted before. There is no standard Sharia law.

Originally Posted by First Lady

One problem comes when they bring their "laws" to other countries all in the name of "religion". Type Sharia law and any country (like UK, Australia or France), in a google news search. It is causing problems well outside the borders of the countries where the law is in place.

I'd suggest to you that 'they' bring their laws to us because in a real sense we invite them to. At least in Canada. We are officially a multi-cultural society, a mosaic. We invite people to hold on to their culture and religious practices (within the boundaries of Canadian law).

Is it time for Canada to re-examine its multi-cultural policy? Maybe the American melting pot model is a better system?

Originally Posted by First Lady

Another problem is whether the rest of the world should just sit by and accept that women and children are oppressed, abused, raped and murdered.

Of course not. Did I say that too?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Cheese

If however they come to Canada or any other free country that doesnt abide by their rules its up to them to abide by what we want. Campaigning for Sharia law within a country that isnt Muslim is simply campaigning for a theocracy.

And you honestly believe there is a serious, well supported (by Muslims) movement to have Canada adopt Sharia law in place of its own laws? You wouldn't be fear-mongering would you?

Originally Posted by Cheese

I dont personally care what you saw in the Muslim countries you visited or lived in. There are decent Muslims who live under oppression, just as there are jerk-offs who demand Sharia oppression to the maximum strength of their law. The common thread between them all is they believe a man rode a winged horse to heaven where the holy book was transcribed and brought back to earth. There are decent Catholics and Baptists who believe in fairy tales just as there are ignorant SOBs who believe Armageddon is just around the corner. Keeping these idiots out of Canada and the west is what we must do....that starts with keeping ANY FORM of Sharia law out of the country.
ANY religious form of oppression, whether Roman Catholic, who are mostly laughed at these days anyways, or the ignorant clerics of Muslim faith, who scare the crap out of most people, should be held accountable.
Religion gives them the perfect alibi.

And there is the great Cheese debate ender!

My personal observations and first hand experiences regarding the average Mohammed-on-the-street are meaningless in the face of Cheese's vision of a world corrupted by religion.

You want to emigrate to Canada? Agree to renounce your past and to swear to live by the tenets of Cheese! There is no multiculturalism. The path to freedom is to end freedoms. There can only be Cheese.

Its ironic but I agree with you that religion divides us more than it unites us but unlike you, I try to find solutions in the real world.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

And you honestly believe there is a serious, well supported (by Muslims) movement to have Canada adopt Sharia law in place of its own laws? You wouldn't be fear-mongering would you?

And there is the great Cheese debate ender!

My personal observations and first hand experiences regarding the average Mohammed-on-the-street are meaningless in the face of Cheese's vision of a world corrupted by religion.

You want to emigrate to Canada? Agree to renounce your past and to swear to live by the tenets of Cheese! There is no multiculturalism. The path to freedom is to end freedoms. There can only be Cheese.

Its ironic but I agree with you that religion divides us more than it unites us but unlike you, I try to find solutions in the real world.

LOL...I almost laughed out loud reading your post. You think you are the only one to have experienced Muslims up close and personal? LOL. Whatever floats your boat kimosabe.

As to Sharia in Canada...the effort has been started and ended by Ontario's Premier...but its not finished yet. Why you say? Because certain elements of the Canadian political fabric think that its ok.

Canadian Muslims are taking steps to set up Sharia law to adjudicate disputes within their own communities. Law Times News reports that "a recent convention of Muslim community leaders" has "elected a 30-member council which will work towards establishing a Darul-Qada (a judicial tribunal), to be known as the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice (Canada)." (Thanks to kathyshaidle, relapsed catholic.)
The article says that "the convention is the latest step in a long struggle to have Islamic law recognized in Canada. Shariah is a complex and sophisticated body of law based on religious principles. Muslims must resolve all their commercial and personal disputes according to its tenets."


Jihad Watch


McGuinty rejects Ontario's use of Shariah law and all religious arbitrations
Keith Leslie
Canadian Press
September 11, 2005
TORONTO (CP) - Ontario will not become the first Western jurisdiction to allow the use of a set of centuries' old religious rules called Shariah law to settle Muslim family disputes, and will ban all religious arbitrations in the province, Premier Dalton McGuinty told The Canadian Press on Sunday.
In a telephone interview with the national news agency, McGuinty announced his government would move quickly to outlaw existing religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act.
"I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," he said.
"There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians."
McGuinty said religious arbitrations "threaten our common ground," and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation "as soon as possible" to outlaw them in Ontario.
"Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice," he said. "But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law."
Last December, a report from former NDP attorney general Marion Boyd recommended the province allow and regulate Shariah arbitrations much the same way it does Christian and Jewish tribunals, setting off a firestorm of protests.
Homa Arjomand, the women's rights activist who organized a series of protests across Canada and Europe last Thursday to convince McGuinty to abandon Shariah, was elated when she heard the news late Sunday.
"I think our voice got heard loud and clear, and I thank the government for coming out with no faith-based arbitrations," said Arjomand. "Oh, I am so happy. That was the best news I have ever heard for the past five years."

The Ontario Government was faced with either having Ontario courts recognize the decisions of Sharia tribunals, or of banning all recognition by Ontario courts of religious tribunals in the province. Premier Dalton McGuinty unilaterally determined to repeal the Arbitration Act as it applied to faith groups. If passed by the Legislature, this will terminate the official recognition of existing Roman Catholic, Jewish and similar courts. The tribunals would continue to function. However their rulings would have no standing in civil law. McGuinty took the unusual step of announcing this decision to the press without prior discussion in Cabinet. Commentator. Haroon Siddiqui commented that critics complained that: "Multiculturalism was eroding common values. The line separating church and state was being erased. Theocracy was being grafted onto Canada." Sharia in CanadaArjomand said her group would now focus on "how to prevent religious arbitration from continuing underground, and how to assure the laws of Ontario are followed and enforced. It seems we'll need to educate the communities, especially the people who are most vulnerable to private religious courts."
Spokespersons for several faith-based groups quickly registered their objections to McGuinty's statements. The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), which represents both Sunni and Shia Muslims, called the Ontario move "misguided." The CIC said in a press release: "We believe that regulated and recognized faith based arbitration is less vulnerable to abuse than unregulated and unrecognized arbitration because it allows transparency and accountability."
One of the key Canadian proponents of sharia, Syed Mumtaz Ali, condemned the Ontario decision as "Islamophobia," and insisted that it "infringes on our guaranteed freedom of religion." He told The National Post: "I wouldn't be surprised if there is a court challenge that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. These are very fundamental rights being affected."


So sayeth the Cheese LOL

[Thor]

Since fear of Islam is a big part of this thread now, I'd point you to read Christopher Hitchens recent Vanity Fair article on Free Speech, Rushdie and Islam.

I nonetheless maintain that language and not politics was the crucial question here. Salman Rushdie, raised a Muslim, concluded that the Koran was a book made by the hands of men and was thus a fit subject for literary criticism and fictional borrowing. (Almost every historic battle for free expression, from Socrates to Galileo, has begun as a struggle over what is and is not “blasphemy.”) In contrast, the very definition of a “fundamentalist” is someone who believes that “holy writ” is instead the fixed and unalterable word of god. For our time and generation, the great conflict between the ironic mind and the literal mind, the experimental and the dogmatic, the tolerant and the fanatical, is the argument that was kindled by The Satanic Verses.

Full article here: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200902

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Thor

Since fear of Islam is a big part of this thread now, I'd point you to read Christopher Hitchens recent Vanity Fair article on Free Speech, Rushdie and Islam.

[/i]


Full article here: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200902

Excellent article Thor...good read.