(no subject)
I did start a post on this on Facebook, but it was turning into a series of comments to myself.
So let's start by pointing out that Britain really does have Sharia courts, that slipped there way into existence through other legislation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
There's some more in depth criticism at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
To a certain extent, most reports try to keep a balanced mind about Sharia, but can't resist phrases like, "It has been used in Iran and Somalia, among other places, to condone harsh punishments like amputations and stoning." (Fox News). It makes a much better horr... news story associating Sharia with the worst Islamic state practices. In reality, much of Sharia is sensible and practical (as I understand it at least; I'm not an expert) and certainly no worse than many absurdities in our own laws and systems. However, there are two key differences, both of which are necessary for bad decisions to be made: one is the lower rating of women in Sharia law; and the other is the potential pressure of families and communities to choose the Sharia courts of arbitration rather than the alternatives.
Also, let's be clear that the problem here is largely a cultural clash. The idea of women being equal only truly entered the West in this century and only because of necessity. I would be lying (not to mention beaten) if I said I supported this aspect of Sharia law, but there are other views I don't agree with, such as this guy: http://www.trosch.org/index.html. And while I find it somewhat depressing that these people actually hold these views, it is their right to do so.
However, what went on in Oklahoma (http://www.channel4.com/news/sharia-law-an-election-issue-in-oklahoma) is distortion and dirty politics. Either that or ignorance, it's hard to be entirely sure. Firstly, the Sharia courts in this country are not a conscious decision of government but due to an opening within our laws. If such a thing was available in Oklahoma, the new legislation wouldn't affect it because it's not within the legal system but within a civil court. Secondly, the action itself was pure scaremongering, bullying politics, as demonstrated by the lack of pre-existing 'threat' and the negative ads that surrounded the opposition. Presumably it was aimed at the same people who think their president is a Muslim http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11027568.
*end rant*
So let's start by pointing out that Britain really does have Sharia courts, that slipped there way into existence through other legislation:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
There's some more in depth criticism at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
To a certain extent, most reports try to keep a balanced mind about Sharia, but can't resist phrases like, "It has been used in Iran and Somalia, among other places, to condone harsh punishments like amputations and stoning." (Fox News). It makes a much better horr... news story associating Sharia with the worst Islamic state practices. In reality, much of Sharia is sensible and practical (as I understand it at least; I'm not an expert) and certainly no worse than many absurdities in our own laws and systems. However, there are two key differences, both of which are necessary for bad decisions to be made: one is the lower rating of women in Sharia law; and the other is the potential pressure of families and communities to choose the Sharia courts of arbitration rather than the alternatives.
Also, let's be clear that the problem here is largely a cultural clash. The idea of women being equal only truly entered the West in this century and only because of necessity. I would be lying (not to mention beaten) if I said I supported this aspect of Sharia law, but there are other views I don't agree with, such as this guy: http://www.trosch.org/index.html. And while I find it somewhat depressing that these people actually hold these views, it is their right to do so.
However, what went on in Oklahoma (http://www.channel4.com/news/sharia-law-an-election-issue-in-oklahoma) is distortion and dirty politics. Either that or ignorance, it's hard to be entirely sure. Firstly, the Sharia courts in this country are not a conscious decision of government but due to an opening within our laws. If such a thing was available in Oklahoma, the new legislation wouldn't affect it because it's not within the legal system but within a civil court. Secondly, the action itself was pure scaremongering, bullying politics, as demonstrated by the lack of pre-existing 'threat' and the negative ads that surrounded the opposition. Presumably it was aimed at the same people who think their president is a Muslim http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11027568.
*end rant*