Shari'a Law

[rigney]

What evidence do you have that the systems are incompatible with each other in the first place? In fact, I believe that I saw a T.V. documentary showing Muslims sending minor non-British legal system issues to a Shariah court. However, I cannot find it at the moment. Additionally, I would be interested in evidence that Shariah or Judaism or Hinduism, each with their own distinctive cultures is doomed to failure in the West. IIRC, the Roman Empire, and others had a pretty pluralistic society with outposts all over Europe, the Mediterranean coast and North Africa. The British Commonwealth (more, or less, the former British Empire) are fairly pluralistic societies. India has a Constitution which guarantees rights to its heady mix of subcultures.

 

Indian Constitution

 

 

 

I think that this is a pretty disturbing issue to me. Firstly let's examine the wealth divide in Western countries, and this is a typical representation of what I have found:

 

 

 

Wealth Distribution

 

In short, the wealthy have a very unequal majority of the wealth in America, and I suspect, in many Western countries. That being the case, they also have an unhealthy influence in Parliamentary affairs in this country, able to sponsor Members of Parliament or to dangle the carrot of directorships at the end of a political career. Members of Parliament are asked formally to declare interests as this snippet shows for a Committee although memories have been known to slip by our distinguished leaders:

 

Declaration of Interests

 

I will come back to the issue of the majority of the public wishing to go to war.

 

Finally, the bottom line IMHO, is that Shariah law (I've stuck with this spelling so far, and it is too late to change now) is not coming to America or Britain. It is, and always will be the case, that immigrants in our nation will have to follow our laws. And the OP and subsequent posts are arguing about a storm in a teacup.

 

While I'm not overly impressed with your description of a "Tempest in a Teapot", I certainly hope you're right Jimmy. But there is one thing you best keep in mind, when the wealthy do not control the wealth, you have anarchy, and nothing more!. Is that what you are looking for? If so, it isn't very Christian of you. Edited October 28, 2010 by rigney

[cypress]

What evidence do you have that the systems are incompatible with each other in the first place? In fact, I believe that I saw a T.V. documentary showing Muslims sending minor non-British legal system issues to a Shariah court. However, I cannot find it at the moment.

 

One can easily cherry pick complex social structures to find isolated examples of compatibility, but do you dispute that there are certain aspects of shari'a law that are contradictory and therefore incompatible with our system of constitutional rights and representative democracy?

 

Additionally, I would be interested in evidence that Shariah or Judaism or Hinduism, each with their own distinctive cultures is doomed to failure in the West. IIRC, the Roman Empire, and others had a pretty pluralistic society with outposts all over Europe, the Mediterranean coast and North Africa. The British Commonwealth (more, or less, the former British Empire) are fairly pluralistic societies.

 

Each of these former societies failed as they previously existed due in part to the inability to remain socially united.

 

I think that this is a pretty disturbing issue to me. Firstly let's examine the wealth divide in Western countries, and this is a typical representation of what I have found:

 

In short, the wealthy have a very unequal majority of the wealth in America, and I suspect, in many Western countries.

 

Yes those who produce more have more to show for it. Productivity drives the economy and improves the standard of living for all. Production should be encouraged.

 

That being the case, they also have an unhealthy influence in Parliamentary affairs in this country, able to sponsor Members of Parliament or to dangle the carrot of directorships at the end of a political career. Members of Parliament are asked formally to declare interests as this snippet shows for a Committee although memories have been known to slip by our distinguished leaders:

 

A system that fails to acknowledge and prevent excesses is flawed. The wealthy are not to blame if the British system does not prevent them from undue influence.

 

Finally, the bottom line IMHO, is that Shariah law (I've stuck with this spelling so far, and it is too late to change now) is not coming to America or Britain. It is, and always will be the case, that immigrants in our nation will have to follow our laws.

 

If shari'a law does not come to America, or Britain it will only be because the society as a whole actively rejects the attempts to incorporate it.

[rigney]

DaSaint: Finally, the bottom line IMHO, is that Shariah law (I've stuck with this spelling so far, and it is too late to change now) is not coming to America or Britain. It is, and always will be the case, that immigrants in our nation will have to follow our laws.

 

Rigney: Tell me Jimmy, do "Radical Muslims" living in England follow Parliamentary Law now? I didn't think so, no more than here in the states. Shari'a is much like our constitution, but has been amended many times by demagogues known as Imoms.

Fortunately like you, we have law makers not "law givers". And these laws must be approved by the populace or they are gone, along with their creators.

Muslims are welcome, but conflicting doctrines to our constitution such as Shari'a Law, NO!

Edited October 29, 2010 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Rigney - there are actually many examples of courts and tribunals in the UK in which alternative "laws" are used, mostly in the private law domain.

 

Even though this is private law with non-standard rules the power of the tribunal is normally upheld by the courts. Many property, marriage, reputation cases are settled by tribunals in which the rules are agreed in advance by the disputants (whether commercial terms, roman catholic canon law, or rabbinical law). There is also of course Equity - which technically was originally church law.

 

You should also bear in mind that the English court is sometimes willing to use foreign law in a case where there is difficulty in simply determining the correct jurisdiction. A contract might state English jurisdiction - but quite clearly have terms that refer to French law, in some circumstances the English Court will use French Law and French interpretation.

 

The arena of criminal law is however not structured on either of these ideas - criminal law is the state or the crown bringing the prosecution and to avoid any possibility of mis-interpretation only one law is acceptable here and that is the law of the state.

 

So, in essence, you are right for criminal law - but there are many other forms of law that impact on daily life.

[jackson33]

You should also bear in mind that the English court is sometimes willing to use foreign law in a case where there is difficulty in simply determining the correct jurisdiction. A contract might state English jurisdiction - but quite clearly have terms that refer to French law, in some circumstances the English Court will use French Law and French interpretation.[/Quote]

 

imatfaal; Picking up on rigneys last comment "Muslims are welcome, but conflicting doctrines to our constitution such as Shari'a Law, NO!", the differences are in the legal systems of Countries and the extreme differences in Muslim ruled countries. If what you say is correct about a contract being written for an entity in England, but under French Jurisdiction, this would not be legal in the US and I seriously doubt legal under British Common Law.

 

Now in the US our States determine most domestic and family law policy, under the guidance of the US Constitution/Amendments and subject to the Supreme Court. To extend this to the above, if Nationally legal, no contract or parts of a contract can be based on any law other than the State it's designed for. The basic problem being parties cannot agree (contract) to anything illegal, to begin with....

 

 

Quranic law also concerns diet (no pork, nor alcohol), finance (no lending on interest), criminal law, civil law, laws of inheritance, and, most prominently, family law. The status of women was greatly improved compared to their situation in pre-Islamic patriarchal society.

 

While the Muslim society and Islamic law regard non-Muslims as second class or "protected" citizens (dhimmi), Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others within the Muslim sphere of influence have generally been treated tolerantly. The Islamic conquest "by the sword" brought Muslim rulers but not forced conversions nor even an immediate Arabization of the recognized minorities. [/Quote]

 

http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/cp/Islam.htm

 

It's not easy to example the differences in Muslim Law, which is taken from a document, interpreted by the leaders, clergy/Imams, and then considering the different sects involved, to a Parliamentary Democracy or Constitutional Republic. However in both the US and England, what's already illegal (criminal), as you say is the States responsibility and duty to enforce their own law. Being Muslim, Catholic, of any faith or no faith, go to mitigating circumstances for sentencing NOT the quilt/innocence of the accused. No Judge or Jury for instance can impose the chopping of a limb for robbery, simply because they might do this in Iran.

 

I offered the above link to help explain some of this; Not eating pork, raising or selling pork or the same for Alcohol is not illegal, most everywhere, or is not charging interest for a loan. Inheritance Law, is subject to the State Law first (without a will), any taxes that might be due and in many places (not sure about England) subject to being probated, regardless the Religion of the person*. Some States do facilitate the burying of the remains (by nightfall), but in no case, I'm aware of is this mandatory. Finally anything under Criminal Law or Family law that is deemed illegal for any person(s) is illegal for all persons of any religion, including Muslims.

 

*If the citizen has not gained legal residency under one State, the previous State can take jurisdiction and non-citizens (legal or not) are subject to there country of origin jurisdiction. Think this is covered under International Law.

[imatfaal]

imatfaal; Picking up on rigneys last comment "Muslims are welcome, but conflicting doctrines to our constitution such as Shari'a Law, NO!", the differences are in the legal systems of Countries and the extreme differences in Muslim ruled countries. If what you say is correct about a contract being written for an entity in England, but under French Jurisdiction, this would not be legal in the US and I seriously doubt legal under British Common Law.

Jackson - firstly there is no such thing as British Common Law - its English and Welsh; the Scots have their own common law system they are rightly proud of. And Secondly, I am absolutely certain it is legal within the English courts - it is normally discussed under the headings international private law or conflict of laws (when to do with incorporation of a foreign law) and ADR (when dealing with tribunals) - IAAL. Whether it is acceptable in the USA - I am not sure and it is not my area; it would not be a common occurrence as the US courts are reluctant to claim jurisdiction of cases in a potential conflict of forums. I can tell you that US courts do not automatically/immediately refuse jurisdiction over a dispute of a contract merely because that contract calls for non-US law. You are right to say that parties cannot agree to break the criminal law (although it can get very close to this) - but they can agree to waive certain rights and privileges that would normally be protected by the law.

 

This is getting very off topic - but it is too easy to follow the traditional line that both English and America common law is ageless and sacrosanct; it just isn't. It changes all the time, items of faith are watered down and quiet backwaters become fierce debates. I do not think there is any real prospect of any foreign or new religious law being used in criminal courts in the UK or USA any time soon - it is a bit of a red-rag argument. From my research in the area; when this is mentioned in the media it is normally massively exaggerated and the story stems from the use of a non-usual law within a private law tribunal (which as I have pointed out above is quite legal).

[rigney]

Jackson - firstly there is no such thing as British Common Law - its English and Welsh; the Scots have their own common law system they are rightly proud of. And Secondly, I am absolutely certain it is legal within the English courts - it is normally discussed under the headings international private law or conflict of laws (when to do with incorporation of a foreign law) and ADR (when dealing with tribunals) - IAAL. Whether it is acceptable in the USA - I am not sure and it is not my area; it would not be a common occurrence as the US courts are reluctant to claim jurisdiction of cases in a potential conflict of forums. I can tell you that US courts do not automatically/immediately refuse jurisdiction over a dispute of a contract merely because that contract calls for non-US law. You are right to say that parties cannot agree to break the criminal law (although it can get very close to this) - but they can agree to waive certain rights and privileges that would normally be protected by the law.

 

This is getting very off topic - but it is too easy to follow the traditional line that both English and America common law is ageless and sacrosanct; it just isn't. It changes all the time, items of faith are watered down and quiet backwaters become fierce debates. I do not think there is any real prospect of any foreign or new religious law being used in criminal courts in the UK or USA any time soon - it is a bit of a red-rag argument. From my research in the area; when this is mentioned in the media it is normally massively exaggerated and the story stems from the use of a non-usual law within a private law tribunal (which as I have pointed out above is quite legal).

 

Whew!, Elections are over and Oklahoma remains safe from Shari'a law for the moment, so I thought I'd send these along to let you know our compass heading, unless we are extremely careful. Good luck and check them out.

 

http://lexingtonlibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-sharia-law-coming-to-america.html

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/sharia_law_in_canada_and_brita.html