Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Stupid old fart
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Deepinder Cheema
Deepinder Cheema
1972 posts

Edited Feb 09, 2008, 03:11
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 03:08
bad move by Rowan, he has completely misjudged how the UK will perceive Sharia law, or as Jeremy Paxman put it last night 'what shall we do about Sharia'.

I have been very wary of what muslims, and pakistani ones at that want from this country, I have found them a constant pain. They have pissed me off since school during the pakistan - India war, and when our dad and his family had to leave the farm in 1947.

Its the fucking thin edge of the wedge. If muslims want Sharia law, they can live somewhere else.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Feb 09, 2008, 03:16
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 03:13
shanshee_allures wrote:
But part of my worry is, won't any court concerned with Shariah law, exclude women a great deal? If you have any female friends or relations who you care about, hopefully you feel at least a twinge at that one too.

Look, I have a huge problem with Islam, as I do with any institutionalised religion. But Islam is indeed particularly problematic with respect to equality issues (whether for women, or homosexuals). That's not to say that Christianity doesn't also have that built in. It does. But christianity has been secularised in most places (at least to a degree) and christian cultures tend (there are exceptions, as we all know) to place established liberal principles such as sexual equality ahead of religious dogma. At least that's the theory.

Islam, on the other hand, hasn't really been secularised in that way. Now, I tend to think that's purely historical. Christianity as a cultural force has existed for 800 years longer than Islam. Judaism has existed for a further thousand. These cultures have had far more time in which to evolve and modern cultural evolution appears to move towards secularism in general. We cannot blame Islam for its relative youth, no more than we can blame America for its relative youth, in comparison to European culture.

However, that does not (as I'm sure we agree) condone behaviour that is clearly injust and destructive to the wider world, whether that's America's military adventures or Islam's inequalities (and there's plenty of other examples. Don't get defensive Americans, I'm just citing two topical ones).

So the treatment of women (and homosexuals) in Islamic cultures is rightfully to be criticised and we should never allow such treatment to be imported by Muslim communities in secular societies. Clearly such inequality does exist in many British (and German, French, etc.) Muslim communities, and we should not tolerate it. To suggest otherwise (as is often spuriously done in the name of 'political correctness') is a clear betrayal of our own principles of equality.

Of course, a Muslim may well point out that we really should get our own house in order first before lecturing them (the treatment of women by Western culture is far from perfect, and we were still imprisoning homosexuals until fairly recently... certainly within the lifetimes of some of the people on this board).

Nonetheless (and that's a fair point in my view), the subservient role expected of women in many (if not most) strands of Islam is an offence to the collective values of our own society and needs to be eliminated (with as much sensitivity as is possible for Muslim communities, but done all the same).

And here we return to the Archbishop and his thoughts on Sharia. I can assure you, I'm not a fan of "men of the cloth", but I do think you do Williams a little injustice. I do think he's a very thoughtful man who brings a refreshing intellectualism to public life that just can't be found in politics or the media these days. I'd much prefer he wasn't a christian spokesman, but I'm actually happy that he's a part of public life as his voice is wiser than most we hear.

No problem if we disagree on the man, as I think we're in basic agreement on the issues.

But to return to your earlier point, cited above, I honestly believe Williams' views are nuanced enough to address your concern (and mine, and any right-thinking person).

I mean, it's safe to say that if a Sharia court "excluded" the rights, or voices, of women it would be breaking existing British equal-opportunity laws. So by Williams' own definition (that a religious court must adhere first to local laws), such a court would not be allowed.

Again, please don't take this as advocacy for Sharia, or for Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth (I worked in Saudi Arabia for a short while and I'd even choose the American Midwest above that totalitarian nightmare!) But I do think that Williams is making a valid point.

I mean, shanshee, you object to women being treated unequally to men under the law, right? As well you should. And if you lived in a place where such inequality was rampant, you would almost certainly feel angry, alienated and mistreated, right? Again, as well you should. So do you not see the problem with a nation that allows Jewish courts -- so long as they are in accordance with local laws -- but does not grant the same rights to Muslims (again, so long as they follow the same rules)?


(And now to bed...)
Deepinder Cheema
Deepinder Cheema
1972 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 03:15
grufty jim wrote:
The thing with Rowan Williams is that he's unfortunately far too thoughtful a person to ever come across well in the media. Yes, I know he's an archbishop and that makes him -- by definition -- on the other side of the fence from me, but he's also a very very perceptive person.

Let me give you my take on what he said. I'm not suggesting this is The One True interpretation, but given what I know of the man's intelligence, I suspect it's pretty close to what he meant.

Let's start with the quote that has so incensed you...

Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

What, precisely, is wrong with that statement?

Me? I don't believe that anyone should have to make such a stark choice. I believe that liberal, enlightened governments (i.e. not those of religious states) should attempt to accommodate the cultures of all those who live within the state, so long as it does not transgress the legal and sociocultural norms of the state.

Let's take an example... Islamic law forbids the charging (and by extension, the payment) of interest. It's considered usury and is a sin in their culture. In order to accommodate this, Islamic banks are permitted to sell "Islamic mortgages" in the UK (note: Muslims don't end up paying any less than the rest of us, it's just calculated in a different way so as to avoid interest). Now, I can't say I've examined the details of the Islamic banking system, so I don't know how it works exactly, but it seems to work fine for them, and it ain't hurting you and me.

Why therefore should Muslims not be permitted to organise their finances in a way that is culturally relevant to them? Why should they be forced to make the stark choice between their culture and UK law? (Note: UK law was amended to take the Islamic banking system into account).

So to broaden it out from that single issue, let's place Rowan Williams' words into context.

There is clearly an increasing social friction developing between the Muslim community in the west and mainstream society. One only needs to read about how you're five times more likely to be the target of a random stop-and-search by the police if you "look Asian" than if you're white, to realise that our society runs the risk (if we've not done it already) of ghettoising Muslims (I'm speaking here as much about psychological alienation and ghettoisation as I am about geography).

Now this is an important issue, because marginalised communities have a negative impact on society as a whole. Even if we don't care about the effect of such marginalisation on Muslims, we should do all we can to minimise it for our own benefit.

In this respect, Williams was simply suggesting that in cases where it does not breach UK laws, and where both parties agree to it, then Muslims should be able to choose to have civil disputes settled in Sharia courts as opposed to UK civil courts.

It's important that we read and digest those provisos. Williams is not suggesting that Sharia should ever supersede UK law. And he was not suggesting that it should ever be applicable to criminal cases.

In fact, and I think this is where people really need to read the totality of what he said rather than appealing to a single quote out of context, Williams was simply suggesting that Muslims should be afforded the same rights as Jews.

See, Orthodox Jews living in the UK can already agree to have civil cases heard in the London Beth Din. They already have this right under English law. Williams was merely suggesting that if we already afford such a right to one community (and have done for a long time), then it's racism -- pure and simple -- to deny the same rights to another community.

Williams was not suggesting that a UK Sharia Court have any more jurisdiction or power than the London Beth Din. What dismayed him -- and dismays me -- is how this debate is clearly being manipulated by cynical anti-muslim sentiment. Lots of calling for Rowan's resignation. Lots of people saying "Sharia? Over my dead body!" But nobody making a fuss about the fact that the Beth Din can see Jewish divorce cases, and the Pope in Rome can annul Catholic marriages. But when a Muslim asks to be treated in the same way? Out come the objections.

Now. Having said all that, I'm going to backtrack quite a lot. You see, I don't believe that Sharia should be introduced. Because I don't believe that laws based on a thousand-year-old dogma should be applied to modern people (even if that's what they want... my views of religious dogma are pretty militant).

HOWEVER, so long as Jews and (to a lesser extent) Catholics enjoy such rights, and so long as there isn't an equal clamour to have other religious courts outlawed, then singling out Sharia smacks of racism.


NOTE: VERY IMPORTANT POINT!! I am NOT suggesting anyone here is being racist. Fact is, most people aren't aware of the London Beth Din and the fact that Jews already have the right to a religious court in civil cases. And I'm sure that you, shanshee, will agree with me when I say that none of these courts should be in operation. But wouldn't you also agree that so long as we allow one culture to enact religious law, that (again, so long as it does not actually contradict local law) we need to be consistent and allow others also? And wouldn't you agree that the huge focus on Sharia combined with the near total-silence on the Beth Din, is indicative of generalised prejudice within the media, and society in general?



I dont trust muslims with their 'law' or how and when its applied. As a previous commentator has said, I think that as soon as they have their foot in the door the perniciousness begins. There is no trustworthy hegemony in Islam.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Feb 09, 2008, 03:22
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 03:20
Deepinder Cheema wrote:
I dont trust muslims with their 'law' or how and when its applied. As a previous commentator has said, I think that as soon as they have their foot in the door the perniciousness begins. There is no trustworthy hegemony in Islam.

Hmmm.... well, I'm afraid I don't trust anyone who can blithely dismiss 1.5 billion individuals as untrustworthy. I'm struggling to view your statement as something other than borderline racist. Please explain it, as I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

EDIT: Just to clarify. It's one thing to be critical of Islamic culture. In my view it's quite another to claim that "muslims are untrustworthy".
Deepinder Cheema
Deepinder Cheema
1972 posts

Edited Feb 09, 2008, 03:37
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 03:35
grufty jim wrote:
Deepinder Cheema wrote:
I dont trust muslims with their 'law' or how and when its applied. As a previous commentator has said, I think that as soon as they have their foot in the door the perniciousness begins. There is no trustworthy hegemony in Islam.

Hmmm.... well, I'm afraid I don't trust anyone who can blithely dismiss 1.5 billion individuals as untrustworthy. I'm struggling to view your statement as something other than borderline racist. Please explain it, as I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.

EDIT: Just to clarify. It's one thing to be critical of Islamic culture. In my view it's quite another to claim that "muslims are untrustworthy".



Until the Muslims in the world can agree on a hegemony, which the majority of the western world had their birthpangs viz a viz Christianity and Reformation, with the road toward secularism
then I do not trust Islam and the ease by which it becomes frequently hijacked, so I would prefer that there is no accomodation of Sharia law, even the good parts in the Civil law, like Riba-banking and money, anything Islam I feel can be prone to being twisted to suit a muslim motherfucker. Can you see any Islamic society making accomodation to laws derived from other religions? They, in tolerant islamic societies may tolerate other cultures, but laws are a little too far. Its best to leave Law making without any reference to a particular religion, but should uphold the rights to your religious beliefs.
handofdave
handofdave
3515 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 04:26
This all goes back to that psycho Abraham.

"Honest, son, the LORD was just testing my faith, heh heh..."
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Feb 09, 2008, 11:09
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 10:47
Yeah, well, what he's calling for is 'Sharia-lite' basically. **We'll tolerate that but not that**. Well good luck to him, think as many Muslims (fundie loons or not) might just resent someone from a rival faith more or less dictating which parts of their 'moraltiy code' we accept and don't (practically, that's what would have to happen!).


For that alone, he is completely out of touch and like most church seniors who've reserved their cloud up in hevvin, merely posturing.
**Go take a look at some graffitti man FFS, anything to give you some 'real insight'** (am sepaking of the bish' here of course;-))

EDIT: Dunno, but I assume that the Jewish courts you keep referring to do not have such contentious issues as stake.

Oh, and please don't overlook that slap upbanquet Britain put on for the Saudi royals (not ver nice people AT ALL) not so long ago, should we always go back to 'Americans' here!


x
dodge one
dodge one
1242 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 12:20
Shanshee, I like your moxie! The adherance to legal systems such as Sharia seem to be rooted in cultural identity. As such i dont feel i'm stickin my neck out too far to say "leave that shit behind when leaving your society to enjoy ours." As i'd mentioned, i have read of some very disturbing accounts of what you described as Honor killings here in the states. The offending parties were not granted Cultural immunity and were aggressively prosecuted. It would seem that fundamentally, were all on the same page here. One thing though.... Mr. Deepinder, some remarks you make: "Muslim Mother-fuckers" and in another recent post calling Condoleeza rice "Bush's House Nigger" Single you out as someone who will be apprised based on your own demerits. Clean up your act.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 13:01
Oh, **blush** and thankyou:-)

My main bugbear with this work shy lout (the bish) is that he's talking in aestheitcs, hasn't said anything in terms of practicalities (avoiding THAT like the plague), and that is just lazy and irresponsible, and in essence, his words amount to nothing.
One of his own cohorts puts it rather well:

** Colonel Edward Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said: "I don't think he is the man for the job. One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas."**

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/nsharia509.xml

**I have no time for the cohort either, hope you understand**


x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 14:06
shanshee_allures wrote:
Yeah, well, what he's calling for is 'Sharia-lite' basically. **We'll tolerate that but not that**. Well good luck to him, think as many Muslims (fundie loons or not) might just resent someone from a rival faith more or less dictating which parts of their 'moraltiy code' we accept and don't (practically, that's what would have to happen!).

No it isn't shansee. Sorry, but I don't see where you're coming from here. Nobody from "a rival faith" would be dictating anything. Williams isn't saying "only the parts of Sharia *I* agree with". He's saying "only the parts of Sharia that are compatible with the local laws of this mostly secular nation".

That's a very different proposition, and your statement is either deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting it.

shanshee_allures wrote:
For that alone, he is completely out of touch and like most church seniors who've reserved their cloud up in hevvin, merely posturing.
**Go take a look at some graffitti man FFS, anything to give you some 'real insight'** (am sepaking of the bish' here of course;-))

I don't believe Williams is any more "out of touch" with society than any churchman or politician or high-level businessman you can mention. And I think he's more thoughtful than almost all of them. For that reason I give him more time than most.

Sorry, but I just don't think any more "real insight" can be gained from the "writing on tenement walls" as from the writing of the intellectuals that Williams is more familiar with. Point me towards a graffitti artist who reveals more about the human condition than Friederich Nietzsche, or Sigmund Freud, or even Albert Einstein.

The world we live in has become powerfuly anti-intellectual and is worse for it.

shanshee_allures wrote:
EDIT: Dunno, but I assume that the Jewish courts you keep referring to do not have such contentious issues as stake.

They have exactly the same issues at stake as would be at stake in their British Islamic equivalent. How could they not have, and still be compatible with British law.

shanshee_allures wrote:
Oh, and please don't overlook that slap upbanquet Britain put on for the Saudi royals (not ver nice people AT ALL) not so long ago, should we always go back to 'Americans' here!

I don't overlook it. Last time around I was at the protest, as I was for the previous Chinese state visit (not this time, as I don't live in London anymore). Saudi Arabia is a nightmarish totalitarian state based upon an extreme and compassionless version of Islam. The question we need to ask ourselves here, however, is whether or not it would be that way if the United States hadn't agreed in the late 1950s to Saudi Arabia becoming a protected, client state?

The Saudi regime is actively propped up by us in the west in order to maintain "stability" in the largest oil producer on earth. It is our consumption of oil that prevents the Saudis from ever having a chance at moving their society forward.
Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index