|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 13, 2015 19:03:48 GMT
Here is an article presenting another side to that argument. It's not something I feel super strongly about one way or the other so I am more presenting another side rather than endorsing it.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 14, 2015 16:17:10 GMT
I donno. Seems to me a woman going to a Sharia court for a divorce decision is kinda like a woman going to a nun for support for her abortion.
Seems both situations should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 14, 2015 18:22:56 GMT
Yeah but if a catholic woman wanted to go to her priest for abortion advice, she can do that. I wouldn't want that and I would recommend it, but you can't really tell people they can't do that. In the same way, if you want someone to mediate your divorce then it seems fair enough that you can if you want.
Also remember that sharia rulings does not necessarily mean Taliban style decisions. There are lots of interpretations of Islam and lots of meanings for what Sharia is.
I don't agree with Sharia myself (otherwise I would be a Muslim) but the idea of using sharia based mediation doesn't really concern me.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jan 14, 2015 18:28:53 GMT
Yeah, but the difference is that the priest or nun isn't performing the abortion.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 14, 2015 18:48:06 GMT
Part of the problem seems to be that this is now giving Sharia "consultations" the support and force of secular law.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 14, 2015 19:21:08 GMT
That my problem with this.
Even if there weren't Sharia courts, people could still go to their imam to ask for advice and guidance, the two things aren't linked. I can go to a priest in my country and ask him for advice, but we outlawed religious courts of any stripe years ago.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Jan 15, 2015 0:34:06 GMT
What Renard said.
The case made in the article is pretty weak, I think. If the woman in the example wanted to exert religious pressure on her husband, she could ask for it anyway (if the Sharia council is progressive enough).
Funny I've heard about Catholic priests dispensing similar "advice".
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 15, 2015 0:45:43 GMT
Okay I just looked into this and the whole thing is a none issue.
The rulings of sharia bodies are legally binding...but ANY body can be set up to act as an arbitrator if both parties agree in a civil dispute.
So to not allow sharia bodies to do this would be to literally exclude them from something absolutely everyone is allowed to do.
I remembered this issue was a load of bollocks, but I only just went and checked exactly why that was.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 15, 2015 0:54:11 GMT
Okay, I guess that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 15, 2015 1:02:16 GMT
Similar Jewish courts have existed for centuries, passing legally binding rulings to those who want them.
People here Sharia and Islam and they get all cray cray.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 15, 2015 1:06:39 GMT
I just don't like the idea of religious courts. If there's any part of a society that ought to be secular, it's the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 15, 2015 2:45:31 GMT
You are preaching to the choir (how ironic) when it comes to the problems of religion. But you can also get secular people to mediate your disputes if you want. Personally I would be less inclined to trust someones mediation if they were basing it on religious views, because religions make people make some really strange choices.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jan 15, 2015 2:55:50 GMT
Exactly, and that's why I don't like having these religious courts; you'd have decisions based on faith and interpretation, and it's entirely possible that people could be pressured into agreeing to use a religious court.
And not just an Islamic court, but any religious court.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Jan 20, 2015 19:28:42 GMT
I saw an apology on Fox News from the woman hosting the "muslims take over birmingham" show. Here it is.Then I noticed another apology from a different show on fox, apologising for the crazy "no-go muslim zones" claim. Here's that one.And then I found another one. Here it is.Is Fox News trying to push an agenda here, but when too far and got caught out? I report, you decide.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jan 20, 2015 20:20:51 GMT
"Not officially labeled..."
"Some of the areas were labeled incorrectly..."
Uh huh. Apology. I see...
|
|