Sharia Family Law
- Thread starter Ae589
- Start date
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Having a choice of marriage contracts does not mean different laws would apply. The agreement would be different, that's all. There's no real difference, it seems to me, between having a choice of marriage contracts and just going to a lawyer to draft a pre-nuptial agreement.
I work in Egypt where Coptic Christians make up about 10-12% of the population. Egypt does not apply Shari’ah Law in its entirety. But Egypt’s Law of Personal Status is founded upon Shari'ah. This means that:
No Christian man may marry a Muslim woman, on pain of death.
A Muslim man may marry Christian women. (Indeed, winning a Christian woman to Islam in this fashion is termed a 'fatah' or opening for God – the same word used for military conquests.) But the children of these Christian women must be reared Muslim.
No Christian may inherit from a Muslim. A Muslim may inherit from a Christian.
No Muslim child may be reared without a Muslim guardian. (A number of Coptic Christian men convert to Islam each year in search of better employment. But if a convert should die, his Christian wife cannot inherit his estate or his pension, and her children are removed from her custody and placed in the hands of a Muslim guardian.)
Christians are encouraged to convert to Islam, but no Muslim may convert to Christianity, Judaism, etc. (Every year a couple of Muslims are foolhardy enough to become Christian in secret. But if they are discovered, they are incarcerated in jail or a mental asylum. They and abused – through torture or the enforced application of clinical drugs – until they recant their apostasy.)
No Christian man may marry a Muslim woman, on pain of death.
A Muslim man may marry Christian women. (Indeed, winning a Christian woman to Islam in this fashion is termed a 'fatah' or opening for God – the same word used for military conquests.) But the children of these Christian women must be reared Muslim.
No Christian may inherit from a Muslim. A Muslim may inherit from a Christian.
No Muslim child may be reared without a Muslim guardian. (A number of Coptic Christian men convert to Islam each year in search of better employment. But if a convert should die, his Christian wife cannot inherit his estate or his pension, and her children are removed from her custody and placed in the hands of a Muslim guardian.)
Christians are encouraged to convert to Islam, but no Muslim may convert to Christianity, Judaism, etc. (Every year a couple of Muslims are foolhardy enough to become Christian in secret. But if they are discovered, they are incarcerated in jail or a mental asylum. They and abused – through torture or the enforced application of clinical drugs – until they recant their apostasy.)
DarthSydodyas
rusting
Secular laws are the only way, where such a diverse group of people call home.
Treelover -
People are not executed for personal status violation – such as converting away from Islam, a Christian man marrying a Muslim woman, etc. a) Because these things simply do not happen – people are too afraid to try. And b) because the state / community acts in practice in a different way. If you try to transgress the laws, you will find yourself either abused by the state until you recant / your marriage is annulled. Or else you would be killed by your own family members or the wider community, much as in honour killings.
But as I say, these things rarely happen because people simply do not dare transgress the law. No Christian man tries to marry a Muslim woman. And no Muslim publicly disavows Islam. Neither act is legally possible. Illegally attempting either would expose you to various forms and extremities of violence.
My broader point, really, was that Personal Status Laws are not personal. They are communal and communalistic and divisive.
People are not executed for personal status violation – such as converting away from Islam, a Christian man marrying a Muslim woman, etc. a) Because these things simply do not happen – people are too afraid to try. And b) because the state / community acts in practice in a different way. If you try to transgress the laws, you will find yourself either abused by the state until you recant / your marriage is annulled. Or else you would be killed by your own family members or the wider community, much as in honour killings.
But as I say, these things rarely happen because people simply do not dare transgress the law. No Christian man tries to marry a Muslim woman. And no Muslim publicly disavows Islam. Neither act is legally possible. Illegally attempting either would expose you to various forms and extremities of violence.
My broader point, really, was that Personal Status Laws are not personal. They are communal and communalistic and divisive.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Roadkill said:
Agreed
Might be worth noting that parts of the tax system and financial regulations have already been amended to allow for Shariah compliant financial products. This has made the UK one of the leading non-Muslim countries in this area.
Is this concession also out of order?
Personally I think that on balance it's OK - if Muslims were excluded from doing things that other people could do, then changing the law accordingly was right. Much less sure about changing family law though, as I'm afraid my perception is that this would in fact be against the interests of Muslim women.
Is this concession also out of order?
Personally I think that on balance it's OK - if Muslims were excluded from doing things that other people could do, then changing the law accordingly was right. Much less sure about changing family law though, as I'm afraid my perception is that this would in fact be against the interests of Muslim women.
JoePolitix
Gone
Ae589 said:
The Government, via Maggy II (Beckett), have recently been meeting with Muslim community leaders to discuss how to combat "extremism" amongst young muslims. One individual, Dr Syed Aziz Pasha of the Union of Muslim Organisations proposed that securing muslims more religious rights would help quell extremism and he argued for a limited form of Sharia in the field of family affairs (dowery payments for marriage, the distribution of deceased members assets among family members etc).
Dr Pasha's ideas were rejected by every other Muslim leader most notably the MCB's Inayat Bunglawala who argued that such proposals would play into the hands of those who accuse muslims of failing to integrate. He concluded "There is no room for a dual legal system in the UK."
So basically there has been alot of hysteria about nothing, the sort of "journalism" you tend to expect these days about events involving muslims.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Where has there been this "hysteria" you describe? I haven't seen any "hysteria" here, just a discussion of the issue of different legal systems. It's actually been quite restrained for this forum.JoePolitix said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I think it's good - I've seen some bad examples in the past of attempts to fund house purchase in the informal sector and the new sharia-compliant financial services are a real step forward. There's no question but that the parties and agreements involved are subject to the same legal system as everyone else.blazzers said:
Magneze said:Oh, so what's he talking about then?
What has been implemented in Scotland?
Nothing has been implemented in Scotland, in Scotland all the laws apply equally to all people of all faiths or none. And I think that's the way it should be. I think he should fuck of to Saudi if he wants to live under Islamic law - religious law has no place in 21st century Britain.
Dissident Junk said:
I agree, you can't have one rule for one, and another rule for another. And having one rule for one, and another rule for another wouldn't help different communities integrate, it would make the 'divides' deeper and more apparent have help racists and extremist groups like the BNP.
JoePolitix
Gone
Fullyplumped said:
I wasn't talking about on this thread - more the media, particularly the op eds of the rightwing press.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Shahid Malik MP recently said much the same thing, adding -Bear said:
In Britain there are no laws that force Muslims to do something against sharia and Muslims enjoy the freedom to worship and follow their religion, as do all other faiths. Compare Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, a sharia regime where women are forbidden to drive; or Turkey, a secular country where women are forbidden to wear the hijab; or Tunisia, where civil servants are forbidden to wear a beard.
I believe that as a Muslim there is no better place to live than Britain. That doesn’t mean that all in the garden is rosy; often Islamophobia is palpable. But my message is: whether you are white, Asian, black, Muslim, Christian or Jew, if you don’t like where you’re living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.
And that point - that Britain is an excellent place for people to be Muslims, but that the same conditions and rules for living together apply equally to all, is the key point.I believe that as a Muslim there is no better place to live than Britain. That doesn’t mean that all in the garden is rosy; often Islamophobia is palpable. But my message is: whether you are white, Asian, black, Muslim, Christian or Jew, if you don’t like where you’re living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority.
JoePolitix
Gone
Fullyplumped said:
Britain might be an excellent place to be for well payed government politicians like Malik, well removed from the sharp edge of poverty and racism, but life evidently isn't so great for sizable numbers of disillusioned and aliented of muslims judging by recent opinion polls.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
How are they limited by status, and what benefits would these millions derive? They are not going to be less profitable to lenders, that's for sure. Anyone can apply for a sharia compliant financial product to fund house purchase, but interest bearing ones are more flexible and convenient and people not restricted by the Islamic rule against interest aren't being advised by IFAs and vendors, I imagine.Dhimmi said:Well yes and no... so that's a maybe.
There's millions of folk who could really benefit from say interest free mortgages, seems a shame to limit such a benefit by status, whatever it might be.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
He's not been an MP all his life. How do you think people get elected?JoePolitix said:
JoePolitix
Gone
Fullyplumped said:
By the electors - what's your point?
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
He's not been an MP all his life. If sizable numbers of other Muslims are that disillusioned they're lucky enough to be living in one of the best countries in the world to change things, which is why more Muslims want to come here to stay than want to leave.JoePolitix said:
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Sorry, I pressed "submit reply" too early and before I'd edited out a slightly daft comment. Bu what I meant was that he would have had to know a lot about the concerns of the electors in his consituency to get elected and that would involve knowing about the effects of racism and poverty.JoePolitix said:
JoePolitix
Gone
Fullyplumped said:
Obviously life will be better for many in Britain than in third world dictatorships but I don't think the "stop whining and be greatful" approach of the likes of Malik is particularly helpful.
Muslims are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, most likely to have poor housing, be unemployed etc. They also have plently of legitimate political greviences, they should be listened to.
When muslims get politically active but refuse to be co-opted into the political mainstream they tend to be denounced as unloyal, fith Columnists etc. Why should Muslims aspire to be a Blairite Uncle Tom like Malik?
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
JoePolitix
Gone
Fullyplumped said:
That doesn't necessarly mean that he can't be co-opted into a the government machine and become seperate from the communities he claims to represent. In a Daily Mail op ed a while back Malik lashes out at "those Muslim leaders, many of whom, I am sorry to say, have lost the stomach for the fight. I am fed up with their constant sniping about the Government's failure to follow up on all the recommendations of the Task Force, set up in the aftermath of the bombing .. it is easier for organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain to criticise the Government, the police or the media, rather than take a long hard look at our own communities. It is easier for them to encourage a victim culture that sees Islamophobia around every corner, rather than challenge within. But that is not leadership. It is abdication. That is why I almost wept when I saw the results of a poll showing that 13 per cent of British Muslims think that the July 7 terrorists should be regarded as 'martyrs'. How sick and deluded can you get?"
Backing Blair and using the most notorious racist rag of middle England to attribute all the blame to muslim organisations, I doubt Malik is highly regarded by many muslims.
JoePolitix
Gone
JoePolitix
Gone
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
JoePolitix said:
He's not saying "stop whining and be grateful" - he said very clearly "if you don’t like where you’re living you have two choices: either you live elsewhere, or you engage in the political process, attempt to create change and ultimately respect the will of the majority." Why make up a quote when his own words are there for you to read?
That's completely true. What Shahid Malik MP is saying is that many of those who purport to speak on behalf of Muslims are not up to the job and are out of touch.JoePolitix said:
I would add that they often fail to represent the diversity of Muslims, and many aren't honest about their agenda.
What's wrong with the political mainstream? Why shouldn't Muslims be involved in Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP, or even the Tories? This isn't the place to debate how useless and harmful the Respect project in England is but it is very unpleasant to hear it suggested that only minority politics are of use to people from minorities.JoePolitix said:
Similar threads
