Yeah, exactly right. It's ridiculous the way people hear "Sharia" and immediately take every negative thing they've ever heard from anywhere in the world by anyone and think they're experts and that it's the moral equivalence of slavery and barbarism.
I'm often depressed by how little effort people make to understand something before they start talking about it.
But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction.
but when women are being hunted down and killed, people are going to take a different view of this issue than, say, kosher laws or the Catholic practice of not eating meat on Fridays or whatever.
And before anyone gets smart and says, "Well, in the Old Testament..." let's be clear that stoning (or whatever else) has been out of style for a few centuries now.
True, but can anyone point out a version of Shari'a that approves them?
That is not to say that I think Williams' proposal is a good one. Israel and India both have polycentric personal legal codes, but I'm not sure that Britain want to go down that road. If what he meant was Islamic courts whose only power to sanction was the approval or disapproval of the religious community, then it seems those already exist. Or, if all he wanted to do was to give Muslim marriages an analogous legal treatment that Jewish and Christian ones receive, then he probably could have used a less charged word than Shari'a. But, as others have pointed out elsewhere, it is not as if British law is about to refuse to divorce Catholics -- so why should it give preferential treatment to Muslim law?
True, but can anyone point out a version of Shari'a that approves them?
Define prove? And I ask that not trying to be smart. There are people that profess that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. There's a whole train of apologetic thought in liberal churches that buy into this. There are Christian's they deny the divinity of Christ. There are Christian's that think abortion is permissible.
We're all supposed to be reading the same book yet we somehow come to vastly differing conclusions.
So, how does one prove this thing? I can quote you two passages out of the Koran right now:
4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witness from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them. Or God ordain for them some (other) way.”
And:
24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
These things are practiced today in Muslim nations. Case after case after case can be sourced. But does this prove anything to anyone that doesn't want to see it? How can it?
It is not my contention that all of the punishments suggested in the Qur'an survive scrutiny by present day standards. However, the passages you quote prescribe 1) house arrest and 2) flogging. Thus, not "honor killings." Islamic law normally follows a rather strict methodology, and often a rule is derived from reading multiple passages from the Qur'an and hadiths in light of each other, so it is not enough just to quote individual passages from the Qur'an to show what Islamic law does or does not approve of. You have to look at the actual texts of the jurists themselves. But by "proof" I didn't mean anything perfect. I just wondered if you or anyone else had some credible evidence that honor killings specifically are accepted by any major interpretations of Shari'a/Islamic law.
Honor killings aren't part of Sharia Law. Therefore, they have nothing to do with this discussion.
And it's utterly fascinating to me that fundamentalist Christians who are so hot on supposedly interpreting the Bible "literally" (which they don't actually do) will declare that the parts of the Bible which condone rape and mass slaughter can be considered irrelevant, but, any part of any interpretation of the Koran which calls for Old Testament style justice is completely relevant and should somehow be "debated."
Tell you what: show me the Muslims who believe that honor killings are part of Islam, and I'll show you the Muslims (including scholars) who say it is not. Now what? Should we "debate?" Debate what?
youknow, being muslim is sort of like being a badass. take me, a medium build guy, wears Old Navy clothing, geeky. Not exactly your profile of a threat. Yet all i have to do is whisper the word Sharia! in a sibilant voice and watch the peeps scatter outta my way. Thats what Ima talkin about, sucker. Dontyoube disrespectin me or I'll get medieval on your covered ass!
i need a theme song now, set to the music of Shaft.
True, but can anyone point out a version of Shari'a that approves them? ... Honor killings aren't part of Sharia Law.
Yes and no. Technically it's more of a tribal issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing
The problem is, sharia is intended to prevent situations where a woman might be "dishonored," so some honor killings are justified as "punishment" for violating sharia.
Similarly, in certain cultures, such as Palestine, a rape victim may be seen as being at fault, and marked for death if, prior to the rape, she failed to adhere to strict segregation between males and females
And sharia tends to let honor killers off lightly:
Islamic religious authorities prohibit extra-legal punishments such as honor killings, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue.[31] They believe that since certain pre-Islamic cultures have influence over a number of Muslims, murderers of females use Islam to justify honor killing, but claim that there is no support for the act in the religion itself. The death penalty cannot always be applied in the Sharia as murders are a type of "qisas" ("retaliation") crime 2-178. This means that the deceased's family should be offered the choice of capital punishment or "diyya" ("blood money") and no execution can take place without them opting for death. Because a relative(s) is usually responsible for the honor killing, it is unlikely that the deceased's family will punish one of their own for the crime.[32]
In fact, one might reasonably argue sharia itself has little to do with Islam, but (like pagan practices adopted by European Christians) rather reflects Arab tribal culture.
A very old culture, I should add, that like most old cultures is very illiberal and misogynistic, and not a reasonable basis for law in a modern liberal democracy.
This is something all cultures have to deal with on the way to enlightened liberalism. When the first Christian missionaries came to the Nordic regions, one of the first things they did was tell them to stop leaving their unwanted female infants to die in the cold. When the British encountered the Indian practice of sati, they told those who murdered widows by ancient custom that they would either stop or be subject to the British custom of hanging murderers.
You can't just pick a long and complex legal system with a 1400 year history with all sorts of good and bad things in it, and then say that because of the bad things in it "it should not be the basis" of current law. Listen: the Bible is part of the Western legal tradition. It just is. There are parts of the Bible we would *never* apply to modern law, but there are parts we still routinely do whether we're aware of it or not. So the real question is, is there *any* part of Sharia law *anywhere* that's *in any way* compatible with values we find acceptable? All you need to do is a little study to realize the answer is "yes." But by studying, that means doing more than finding some articles written by people who hate Islam and want to fill your ear with every negative story in the universe.
Is it too much to ask that Muslims simply be held to the same standards everyone else is, within reason?
So the real question is, is there *any* part of Sharia law *anywhere* that's *in any way* compatible with values we find acceptable?
Of course, and I don't see any reason why civil disputes couldn't be arbitrated under sharia, if both parties consent.
The problem here is two paradigms that are incompatible: the traditional primacy of the family versus the modern state's duty to protect individual rights. And on that conflict, I don't think we can give an inch and still call ourselves liberal.
I think supporters of Sharia in Britain should rally behind the Archbishop. Please, reassure the British public. Let them know that their new Gulf state overlords will let them keep a few of their infidel pubs open for a few short hours a day.
The Brits will be so grateful for your kind words.
Well, where are we be asked to give an inch? Letting people settle family disputes voluntarily under various forms of religious courts certainly doesn't seem scary to me. As long as it is truly voluntary of course.
Letting people settle family disputes voluntarily under various forms of religious courts certainly doesn't seem scary to me.
For civil disputes, no. But if you murder your sister, and your family is considered the wronged party, and your family's culture says the murder was OK, then there's that fundamental conflict between the primacy of the family and the state's duty to protect your sister's rights.
Now, you can argue, correctly, that sharia does not say you can kill your sister for "dishonoring" your family, any more than Jewish law says you can kill your brother for not keeping kosher or Catholic teachings allow you to kill your father for eating meat on a Friday.
The problem people have, I think, which is resaonable, is this: some versions of sharia do mandate certain behaviors for women, and women who violate them are being murdered.
I think if Jews or Catholics were being regularly murdered as above, we would, as a liberal society, have some duty to strongly discourage those laws from being practiced, at least in their illiberal portions.
Why are you asking me, ask the Brits. Oh, and be sure to quote the Bible and the Koran, liberally. Tell them that their legal system is based on the word of God. That'll get them on your side.
In point of fact, we already have numerous examples within our own country of religious arbitration being used to settle civil disputes. It's been going on for some time. It's nothing new, and it's nothing scary.
Murder is still clearly murder and should not be tolerated. If that's what we're talking about, then why don't we talk about the wrongness of murder and the need to eliminate it rather than this silly crap about Sharia being "imposed" because some woman somewhere in the United States wants to use an Imam to help her settle her divorce dispute?
why don't we talk about the wrongness of murder and the need to eliminate it rather than this silly crap about Sharia being "imposed"
Again, because violence is being used to enforce sharia.
Or as Glenn put it:
It's interesting, however, that Rowan Williams need have no fear for his personal safety after saying that Sharia is inevitable in England, while had he said bad things about Sharia the reverse would have been true. Under such circumstances, is behavior like his surprising?
That's not an answer. Violence is not acceptable here and no one's proposing to legalize it. At least, no one serious. So why the focus on Sharia, instead of the focus on laws against violence and the need to utterly oppose that? Unless the goal is to make people like Aziz and Daniel look like scary boogie men?
Because Sharia, like "Lebansraum", is used as a rallying cry for fascist-funded paramilitary groups worldwide. From Osama bin Laden's letter to the American people:
Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
1. These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
..and, also from Osama:
It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
1.You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
Sharia is being used by bin Laden and his ilk as a means of establishing dominance over the west. When sharia is established and respected in a western country, his followers and his sponsors believe that they have won territory and power. We may not see it that way, but they do.
I'm sure that there were plenty of reasonable Germans during the 1930's who simply wanted to buy some land and build a nice house. There were plenty of nice Hindus who thought that the swastika was a symbol of peace. It's not their fault that Hitler used their beliefs and symbols for his propaganda.
By the way, why would anyone in Britain be disturbed to learn that large swaths of their system of law are based on the Bible? They've got an official state-funded Church for goodness sake. It's what pays Rowan Williams' salary, as it happens.
I don't give a shit what Bin Laden has to say about the matter, Mary. I'm more interested in opposing Bin Ladenism than picking one word to be frightened like a schoolgirl of.
Study the Nazi Party platform of the 1930s and you'll see they advocated universal education for the masses. So should we all be afraid of that too?
Can we please stop smearing every Muslim on the planet based on the lunatic rantings of a madman?
Show me the people who want to impose Bin Ladenism on America, and I'll show you people I'll happily help drive out of the country or even execute. But let's stop with the shrieking hysteria over stupid and unconstructive things.
By the way, why would anyone in Britain be disturbed to learn that large swaths of their system of law are based on the Bible? They've got an official state-funded Church for goodness sake. It's what pays Rowan Williams' salary, as it happens.
Dean, honestly, your argument isn't with me, it's with those hysterical brits. The ones who are asking "Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?".
If you and others believe that Sharia is a good and beneficial system of law, go on their blogs and tell them.
I'll be happy to discuss with them why the Archbishop is something of a blithering idiot, as Aziz has so well demonstrated. I'd also be encouraging them, as I always do in these discussions, to get rational rather than hysterical. It starts like this: "People can live with whatever religious laws you like, as long as the basic civil rights we all enjoy are respected for all individuals, and if you can keep your Sharia customs and still do that then we have no argument."
FWIW, I think Islam is gradually purging its violently illiberal elements (this is most vividly seen in the abrupt transformation of Anbar, but seems to happening more gradually almost everywhere).
Hopefully in 20-40 years, sharia will be no more of an issue than kosher.
I would just like to point out that the verse you quote, Kevin, stipulates that there must be 4 eye-witnesses to an act of adultery in order for that act to be punished. This is meant to prevent the state from interfering in the private life of a citizen without irrefutable proof of wrongdoing. Where on earth are you going to find 4 witnesses to an act of adultery? It's meant to be almost impossible.
In addition, slander and gossip--which is what usually gives rise to honor killings--are considered grave sins, and no substitute for proof.
Unfortunately there are those who ignore these stipulations, which is why I think Shari'a in the hands of ordinary Muslims, most of whom are as ignorant of their own religion as the average non-Muslim, is a bad idea.
Willow: According to some interpretations of the 'four witness' rule, not only must there be the four witnesses, but they must be unable to pass a thread between the two copulating bodies. Short of a live sex show on stage, I don't see any two, run of the mill adulterers putting up with that.
Short of the four witnesses, the only way an adulterer (under these interpretations, anyway) is for both parties to confess to the adultery.
That was the issue in the 'Death of a Princess' controversy from back in the early 80s. The couple confessed and would not retract the confessions. Hence, execution.
My concern is that if it were put in place, it would quickly morph into something he couldn't tolerate, but it would be too late to undo it.
Dishman, the overwhelming trend of history is that repressive laws become liberalized over time. Example - all of European history.
I agree with Tall Dave upthread. The muslim world is only 100 years old post-Ottoman collapse, and most of that has been as pawns under the great game of the colonial powers. Only now are they beginning the process of political maturation. Even in Saudi Arabia, the signs are there. In 50 years... well, just look at Dubai. Its basically Singapore.
"The problem is, sharia is intended to prevent situations where a woman might be "dishonored," so some honor killings are justified as "punishment" for violating sharia."
Fathers in almost all cultures have serious objection to their daughters being "dishonored". This is not a Sharia thing.
2.9.2008 3:49pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
I'm often depressed by how little effort people make to understand something before they start talking about it.
Look, it's all very well to say things likebut when women are being hunted down and killed, people are going to take a different view of this issue than, say, kosher laws or the Catholic practice of not eating meat on Fridays or whatever.
A fair point.
And before anyone gets smart and says, "Well, in the Old Testament..." let's be clear that stoning (or whatever else) has been out of style for a few centuries now.
Honor killings are going on today.
True, but can anyone point out a version of Shari'a that approves them?
That is not to say that I think Williams' proposal is a good one. Israel and India both have polycentric personal legal codes, but I'm not sure that Britain want to go down that road. If what he meant was Islamic courts whose only power to sanction was the approval or disapproval of the religious community, then it seems those already exist. Or, if all he wanted to do was to give Muslim marriages an analogous legal treatment that Jewish and Christian ones receive, then he probably could have used a less charged word than Shari'a. But, as others have pointed out elsewhere, it is not as if British law is about to refuse to divorce Catholics -- so why should it give preferential treatment to Muslim law?
Define prove? And I ask that not trying to be smart. There are people that profess that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. There's a whole train of apologetic thought in liberal churches that buy into this. There are Christian's they deny the divinity of Christ. There are Christian's that think abortion is permissible.
We're all supposed to be reading the same book yet we somehow come to vastly differing conclusions.
So, how does one prove this thing? I can quote you two passages out of the Koran right now:
And:
24:2 “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication—flog each of them with hundred stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the last day.”
These things are practiced today in Muslim nations. Case after case after case can be sourced. But does this prove anything to anyone that doesn't want to see it? How can it?
It is not my contention that all of the punishments suggested in the Qur'an survive scrutiny by present day standards. However, the passages you quote prescribe 1) house arrest and 2) flogging. Thus, not "honor killings." Islamic law normally follows a rather strict methodology, and often a rule is derived from reading multiple passages from the Qur'an and hadiths in light of each other, so it is not enough just to quote individual passages from the Qur'an to show what Islamic law does or does not approve of. You have to look at the actual texts of the jurists themselves. But by "proof" I didn't mean anything perfect. I just wondered if you or anyone else had some credible evidence that honor killings specifically are accepted by any major interpretations of Shari'a/Islamic law.
And it's utterly fascinating to me that fundamentalist Christians who are so hot on supposedly interpreting the Bible "literally" (which they don't actually do) will declare that the parts of the Bible which condone rape and mass slaughter can be considered irrelevant, but, any part of any interpretation of the Koran which calls for Old Testament style justice is completely relevant and should somehow be "debated."
Tell you what: show me the Muslims who believe that honor killings are part of Islam, and I'll show you the Muslims (including scholars) who say it is not. Now what? Should we "debate?" Debate what?
Saudi Law Applied in Texas, Minnesota Courts.
i need a theme song now, set to the music of Shaft.
Yes and no. Technically it's more of a tribal issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing
The problem is, sharia is intended to prevent situations where a woman might be "dishonored," so some honor killings are justified as "punishment" for violating sharia.
Similarly, in certain cultures, such as Palestine, a rape victim may be seen as being at fault, and marked for death if, prior to the rape, she failed to adhere to strict segregation between males and females
And sharia tends to let honor killers off lightly:
Islamic religious authorities prohibit extra-legal punishments such as honor killings, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue.[31] They believe that since certain pre-Islamic cultures have influence over a number of Muslims, murderers of females use Islam to justify honor killing, but claim that there is no support for the act in the religion itself. The death penalty cannot always be applied in the Sharia as murders are a type of "qisas" ("retaliation") crime 2-178. This means that the deceased's family should be offered the choice of capital punishment or "diyya" ("blood money") and no execution can take place without them opting for death. Because a relative(s) is usually responsible for the honor killing, it is unlikely that the deceased's family will punish one of their own for the crime.[32]
This is something all cultures have to deal with on the way to enlightened liberalism. When the first Christian missionaries came to the Nordic regions, one of the first things they did was tell them to stop leaving their unwanted female infants to die in the cold. When the British encountered the Indian practice of sati, they told those who murdered widows by ancient custom that they would either stop or be subject to the British custom of hanging murderers.
Is it too much to ask that Muslims simply be held to the same standards everyone else is, within reason?
Of course, and I don't see any reason why civil disputes couldn't be arbitrated under sharia, if both parties consent.
The problem here is two paradigms that are incompatible: the traditional primacy of the family versus the modern state's duty to protect individual rights. And on that conflict, I don't think we can give an inch and still call ourselves liberal.
The Brits will be so grateful for your kind words.
Is it?
I thought part of the package on immigrating to a country was accepting its legal code. Is it too much to ask that Muslims accept the legal code?
For civil disputes, no. But if you murder your sister, and your family is considered the wronged party, and your family's culture says the murder was OK, then there's that fundamental conflict between the primacy of the family and the state's duty to protect your sister's rights.
Now, you can argue, correctly, that sharia does not say you can kill your sister for "dishonoring" your family, any more than Jewish law says you can kill your brother for not keeping kosher or Catholic teachings allow you to kill your father for eating meat on a Friday.
The problem people have, I think, which is resaonable, is this: some versions of sharia do mandate certain behaviors for women, and women who violate them are being murdered.
I think if Jews or Catholics were being regularly murdered as above, we would, as a liberal society, have some duty to strongly discourage those laws from being practiced, at least in their illiberal portions.
Why are you asking me, ask the Brits. Oh, and be sure to quote the Bible and the Koran, liberally. Tell them that their legal system is based on the word of God. That'll get them on your side.
In point of fact, we already have numerous examples within our own country of religious arbitration being used to settle civil disputes. It's been going on for some time. It's nothing new, and it's nothing scary.
Murder is still clearly murder and should not be tolerated. If that's what we're talking about, then why don't we talk about the wrongness of murder and the need to eliminate it rather than this silly crap about Sharia being "imposed" because some woman somewhere in the United States wants to use an Imam to help her settle her divorce dispute?
Again, because violence is being used to enforce sharia.
Or as Glenn put it:
It's interesting, however, that Rowan Williams need have no fear for his personal safety after saying that Sharia is inevitable in England, while had he said bad things about Sharia the reverse would have been true. Under such circumstances, is behavior like his surprising?
Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;
1. These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.
..and, also from Osama:
It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:
1.You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?
Sharia is being used by bin Laden and his ilk as a means of establishing dominance over the west. When sharia is established and respected in a western country, his followers and his sponsors believe that they have won territory and power. We may not see it that way, but they do.
I'm sure that there were plenty of reasonable Germans during the 1930's who simply wanted to buy some land and build a nice house. There were plenty of nice Hindus who thought that the swastika was a symbol of peace. It's not their fault that Hitler used their beliefs and symbols for his propaganda.
Study the Nazi Party platform of the 1930s and you'll see they advocated universal education for the masses. So should we all be afraid of that too?
Can we please stop smearing every Muslim on the planet based on the lunatic rantings of a madman?
Show me the people who want to impose Bin Ladenism on America, and I'll show you people I'll happily help drive out of the country or even execute. But let's stop with the shrieking hysteria over stupid and unconstructive things.
I think that is the focus. The objection people have to sharia is that it is too often being enforced via extralegal violence.
and how's that working out for them?
They're still picking out drapes for their caves, I see.
Dean, honestly, your argument isn't with me, it's with those hysterical brits. The ones who are asking "Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?".
If you and others believe that Sharia is a good and beneficial system of law, go on their blogs and tell them.
I don't honestly see what's so tough about that.
Hopefully in 20-40 years, sharia will be no more of an issue than kosher.
I don't either. please go ahead and talk to them..
In addition, slander and gossip--which is what usually gives rise to honor killings--are considered grave sins, and no substitute for proof.
Unfortunately there are those who ignore these stipulations, which is why I think Shari'a in the hands of ordinary Muslims, most of whom are as ignorant of their own religion as the average non-Muslim, is a bad idea.
Short of the four witnesses, the only way an adulterer (under these interpretations, anyway) is for both parties to confess to the adultery.
That was the issue in the 'Death of a Princess' controversy from back in the early 80s. The couple confessed and would not retract the confessions. Hence, execution.
My concern is that if it were put in place, it would quickly morph into something he couldn't tolerate, but it would be too late to undo it.
Dishman, the overwhelming trend of history is that repressive laws become liberalized over time. Example - all of European history.
I agree with Tall Dave upthread. The muslim world is only 100 years old post-Ottoman collapse, and most of that has been as pawns under the great game of the colonial powers. Only now are they beginning the process of political maturation. Even in Saudi Arabia, the signs are there. In 50 years... well, just look at Dubai. Its basically Singapore.
Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Sudan, post-Soviet Russia...
Fathers in almost all cultures have serious objection to their daughters being "dishonored". This is not a Sharia thing.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.