[lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law in England
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:48:34 +0100 (BST)
Veronica,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, my near experience
has been with a Muslim woman friend who married a Muslim >man but only in the
mosque. No state certificate as required by secular law. When she
wanted to divorce him, he was needed to give consent to the imam. He
didn't give it.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They weren't then, in the eyes of the state, married? (Here too they'd need
some form of state certification but if a religious building is licensed, that
suffices.) It's a problem here too in that the spouses then lack the various
protections of official marriage.
There is though nothing the state can do in such a situation any more than it
can help a Roman Catholic who can't remarry because they can't get an
annulment, or a Jewish spouse who can't get a religious divorce, or a divorced
Anglican who can't marry in church. (Charles and Camilla had a registry office
wedding.) The actual legal status of the original marriage isn't relevant to
that.
I don't see how the state can intervene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I watched the debates on Sharia on Canadian TV. The people most
vehemently in opposition to the Canadian government allowing it were Muslim
women
<<<<<<<<<<<<
the Ontario thing? Ontario has arbitration laws like the UK's, allowing
alternative resolution of civil disputes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Under Canadian law, couples are free to make their own arrangements both for
cohabitation and for separation. In the latter case, where consensus and
mediation prove impossible they may resort to private third-party adjudication,
choose their own arbitrators, and apply any religious and cultural principles
they wish so long as these do not harm others or conflict with the laws of
Canada. Or they may decide to take the matter to court and let a judge decide.
Which course they adopt is their choice, and no one else's.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/fidler270506.html
Judy Evans, Cardiff
--- On Wed, 13/10/10, Veronica Caley <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Veronica Caley <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law in England
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, 13 October, 2010, 22:22
My knowledge of Jews having their own courts and laws came from a TV crime
show. The story revolved around a woman who got divorced and needed the
husband's consent to remarry. His price for permission was that she give
up all rights to their children. I had previously read about the real
case.
I know quite a bit more about Sharia. But, my near experience
has been with a Muslim woman friend who married a Muslim man but only in the
mosque. No state certificate as required by secular law. When she
wanted to divorce him, he was needed to give consent to the imam. He
didn't give it. Until a while later. When I asked her how much she
had to pay, she said nothing, but I don't believe it. Her family has been
here for about 90 years. She and siblings were all born here.
Assimilated apparently only on an economic and linguistics level.
I watched the debates on Sharia on Canadian TV. The people most
vehemently in opposition to the Canadian government allowing it were Muslim
women. All of them spoke fluent English and many were probably born in
Canada. Regarding the settlement of inheritance where the sons get twice
as much as the daughters, if it's OK with the daughters it's OK with me.
But I wonder how many Muslim women involved in Sharia settlement issues know
that this is not the way in the secular countries where they live. Although
with
estate issues, one can leave
everything to one child regardless of gender.
Re the Jewish law, according to a recent NYTimes article the Orthodox Jews
in Israel are fighting with others elsewhere about who is and is not a
Jew. Nice. It makes me long for the atheistic rabbi that I miss so
much.
Re judge Judy, that never even occurred to me. Re arbitration in a
secular court, I am all for it.
When I come across these types of issues I always remember the chapter in
the Brothers Karamazov where the religious authority explains what
human beings are about. Miracle, mystery and authority. And as
numerous
persons on this list have pointed out, people stay in these systems by
their own free will. If there is such a thing,
which I am increasingly getting to doubt. By the way, in Ann Arbor MI
we have a bank catering to Muslim ethics.
Veronica
Message -----
From:
carol
kirschenbaum
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:39
AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law in
England
Veronica,
Your surprise surprised me. I never thought about Islamic law that much.
But I sort of assumed that there's an Islamic equivalent of Jewish
law (a Bet Din, or Halachic law) in both the US and UK--and France,
too. I grew up in a tradition where one observes rulings by both civil
and Jewish courts. Official wedding ceremonies, in my extended
French and American family, consisted of all-day schelps
from City Hall to the synagogue. What's new, I gather, is the edge of
hysteria now associated in these parts with anything Muslim. Sharia
law...yikes! They'll make us wear veils! (Frankly, at my age I'd welcome
one.)
Carol K.,
PDX
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Veronica Caley <molleo1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Did anyone on this list know that Sharia Law is in Britain? I
just read it in Sunday "Times" Sept. 14th, 2008.
Tried to copy the link but couldn't. You can find several
articles by Googling: England/Sharia Law. I wonder how many people
using this legal system can even read or write English.
I was surprised because Canadians tried it but their Supreme Court
ruled against it.
Veronica Caley
Milford, MI
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
