Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?

[Smoke]

How would you propose we get to that end result? Would you prohibit all arbitration, or would you create a situation where different types of arbitration are treated differently under the law depending on their religious basis (or lack thereof)?

I can't speak for Ymir, but I'm opposed to binding arbitration of any kind. Arbitration is fine, provided that the parties have the right to withdraw from arbitration or to appeal the arbitrators' decision, but seems absurd to give greater authority to an arbitrator than to a district court.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't speak for Ymir, but I'm opposed to binding arbitration of any kind. Arbitration is fine, provided that the parties have the right to withdraw from arbitration or to appeal the arbitrators' decision, but seems absurd to give greater authority to an arbitrator than to a district court.

So as long as parties to arbitration have recourse to the courts and have the right of appeal, you're okay with it?

Edit: I'm probably inclined to agree with you, but I think it's a separate issue to the question of religious versus non-religious arbitration.

 

[Badran]

At the risk of completely derailing this thread, what is so different about Sharia Law than theocracy (by any religion)?

Sharia is the implementation of Islam in a society, that wants to live under Islamic laws.

The teachings of Islam are not all laws, they are not obligatory. There is an aspect of Islam that contains laws for the establishment of such societies. Sharia is not like the teachings of Islam in general. Its not perfect, its not unchanging.

A lot of sharia laws are not addressed neither in the Quran nor the Hadiths because sharia laws must cover everything. And obviously everything is not covered in the quran and Hadiths. That were we muslims come in to make laws to these new issues in the light of our understanding of Islam. A process similar to making a fatwa.

So, making a sharia law is not so different from making a law, the only difference is that those making the sharia laws must be experts in Islam (scholars). Another difference, is that some people would see the opinions of such scholars as something not up for negotiation. I disagree with that part however.

Regardless of all that, this is not whats being proposed here. Whats being proposed here is to allow muslims the ability to solve certain disputes and problems between themselves according to Islamic principles (sharia in other words, because it addresses laws), only applicable to muslims who also happen to want so. And the country preserves the final say in anything as it is the governing law for the land. An example, is that if there is a family dispute over inheritance, and they all agree to be judged through the Islamic inheritance system, they'd do that, and the government would recognize the outcome.

 

[YmirGF]

I can't speak for Ymir, but I'm opposed to binding arbitration of any kind. Arbitration is fine, provided that the parties have the right to withdraw from arbitration or to appeal the arbitrators' decision, but seems absurd to give greater authority to an arbitrator than to a district court.

Precisely, Bill. Arbitration is very good, for the most part, however, any parties involved in arbitration should be able to withdraw from that process and seek resolution in the court system. I remain deeply suspicious of the coercion that could be exerted on individuals to "voluntarily" take part in religiously oriented proceedings.

And sorry, 9-10ths, I see no baby in a tub, so I have no problem tossing out the bathwater. There should be only one set of rules to apply to all citizens, period.

 

[Smoke]

So as long as parties to arbitration have recourse to the courts and have the right of appeal, you're okay with it?

I think so.

Edit: I'm probably inclined to agree with you, but I think it's a separate issue to the question of religious versus non-religious arbitration.

I think it's rash, at best, to assume that a religious court is an appropriate abritator, and I'm not sure we're just talking about arbitration when we talk about Sharia courts. A Malaysian-style system -- in which Muslims, but only Muslims, can be punished by the Sharia courts for what Islamic authorities consider to be an infraction -- is clearly undesirable.

I can't think of a single instance in which any civil purpose would be served by conferring civil authority on a religious court.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Precisely, Bill. Arbitration is very good, for the most part, however, any parties involved in arbitration should be able to withdraw from that process and seek resolution in the court system. I remain deeply suspicious of the coercion that could be exerted on individuals to "voluntarily" take part in religiously oriented proceedings.

And sorry, 9-10ths, I see no baby in a tub, so I have no problem tossing out the bathwater. There should be only one set of rules to apply to all citizens, period.

And what should those rules be, exactly?

The baby in the tub is arbitration itself, which you acknowledge yourself is "very good".

Again: we have a few choices:

1. Everyone gets the right to arbitration as they see fit.
2. People who want religiously-based arbitration aren't allowed it; everyone else gets the right to arbitration as they see fit.
3. Nobody gets the right to arbitration as they see fit.

Choice 1 allows for Sharia, which you say you oppose.

Choice 2 is a double standard on the basis of religion, which you say you oppose.

Choice 3 deprives society of something of value, which you say you aren't arguing for.

So... which is it? What are you actually arguing for? Is it one of the choices I've listed above? If so, which one? If you're arguing for something else, what is it, exactly?

I'm starting to have a very difficult time continuing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being deliberately evasive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's rash, at best, to assume that a religious court is an appropriate abritator, and I'm not sure we're just talking about arbitration when we talk about Sharia courts. A Malaysian-style system -- in which Muslims, but only Muslims, can be punished by the Sharia courts for what Islamic authorities consider to be an infraction -- is clearly undesirable.

I can't think of a single instance in which any civil purpose would be served by conferring civil authority on a religious court.

I agree. I said earlier that I'm strongly opposed to any system where Sharia is mandatory for anyone.

And I personally agree that a religious court probably wouldn't be an appropriate arbitrartor (I certainly would never want to go to one), but when we're talking about ADR laws that could potentially allow disputes to be settled by, say, a three-legged race or other non-religious methods that I'd consider to be highly dubious, I don't see what the justification is to exclude Sharia.

 

[YmirGF]

1. Everyone gets the right to arbitration as they see fit.

If you remove "as they see fit" then I would happily agree with this.
If you don't like the ruling of the arbitrator take your case before the courts. I don't get a court of law "as I see fit", so why should the arbitration process be any more accommodating?

2. People who want religiously-based arbitration aren't allowed it; everyone else gets the right to arbitration as they see fit.

Hmmm... that nasty "as they see fit" line again.

3. Nobody gets the right to arbitration as they see fit.

Oddly, I hadn't realized that one could "shop" for the kind of arbitration "they see fit". That IS a novel concept.

Choice 1 allows for Sharia, which you say you oppose.

Not if you remove the curious "as they see fit" line. You simply get to see an arbitrator. Suck it up, Sunshine. If you don't like their ruling, sue.

Choice 2 is a double standard on the basis of religion, which you say you oppose.

By default, offering this option to religious groups, would necessitate it being applied equally to ALL religious groups. I see that as a considerable waste of resources. I prefer the one size, fits all, approach. If that is unsatisfactory, there is always civil court.

Choice 3 deprives society of something of value, which you say you aren't arguing for.

I simply do not expect arbitration "as I see fit", 9-10ths. I expect arbitration, yes, but not that will necessarily conform to my spiritual nature. How for example, would you accommodate someone of my spiritual nature? Do I get an arbitrator that is sensitive to my spiritual outlook? Good luck on finding such an arbitrator, lol.

So... which is it? What are you actually arguing for? Is it one of the choices I've listed above? If so, which one? If you're arguing for something else, what is it, exactly?

I am quite unimpressed with the notion of "as they see fit". Arbitration is about negotiations and when entering into negotiations one must be prepared to make sacrifices, not have a rigged deck that assures a given outcome.

I'm starting to have a very difficult time continuing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being deliberately evasive.

 

[dogsgod]

Considering the definition of secular, once a religious law is permitted for a given religion, the system ceases to be secular at that moment.

 

[Smoke]

Considering the definition of secular, once a religious law is permitted for a given religion, the system ceases to be secular at that moment.

I think you could very easily end up with a sort of millet system if you weren't very careful. That system wasn't good for the Ottoman Empire, and it certainly wouldn't be compatible with a secular democracy.

 

[dust1n]

*MOD POST: Thread moved into the general debates from the Islam DIR*

Given the comments of some Muslims on RF, that Islam is not compatible with Secularism, should secular societies allow Sharia law to be enacted within secular societies?

Link to Not4me's thread: Secularism vs Islam

After making your selection in the poll, please comment on your vote, if you feel so inclined.

If yes, why so?
If not, why not?
If you are unsure, why are you unsure?

DO share your thoughts.

I should go ahead and note that I won't follow Sharia Law nor Secular Law unless I agree with that particular law. If I do not, then I will do it anyways, allotting the act is easy to get away with with no repercussions. That being said, I voted 'under some circumstances.' If your 'Sharia law' or 'secular law' tries to affect me against my will and judgment, then we will have a very direct problem. If your 'Sharia law' or 'secular law' affects children or other innocent people, then we will have a large, indirect problem.

 

[YmirGF]

I should go ahead and note that I won't follow Sharia Law nor Secular Law unless I agree with that particular law. If I do not, then I will do it anyways, allotting the act is easy to get away with with no repercussions. That being said, I voted 'under some circumstances.' If your 'Sharia law' or 'secular law' tries to affect me against my will and judgment, then we will have a very direct problem. If your 'Sharia law' or 'secular law' affects children or other innocent people, then we will have a large, indirect problem.

I hear ya, Dustin, but at least in cases of law in a secular society, you have a chance to change said laws. Good luck changing laws in a land governed by Sharia.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you remove "as they see fit" then I would happily agree with this.

I've repeated myself enough times on this for you to know full well that "within the limits of the law" is implied.

If you don't like the ruling of the arbitrator take your case before the courts. I don't get a court of law "as I see fit", so why should the arbitration process be any more accommodating?

Because that's the point of arbitration. And you get the right to use arbitration, too... on exactly the same terms as those who use Sharia-style arbitration. Even though your choices of the form of arbitration would be different, you both have the same right in this regard.

How would arbitration work in the hypothetical system you propose? Would you get a "take-it-or-leave-it" arbitrator assigned by the state?

I see absolutely no issue in the way things are done in most places I know of: the parties to a dispute agree upon an arbitrator, who usually has some sort of certification or license. The arbitrator can then conduct the arbitration in any he or she deems appropriate, as long as it's legal.

Are you saying that you have an issue with this sort of arrangement?

Again: what's the actual system that you propose?

 

[YmirGF]

Again: what's the actual system that you propose?

9-10ths, if you cannot already discern what my intended model would be then it is unlikely that I could make you understand with a lengthier explanation. I am not in favor of ANY religiously oriented arbitration, period. I would, quite happily, vote for repealing the authority of any existing religiously based forms of arbitration. I propose a "one size, fits all" scenario. If you have issues with that, I am not particularly interested in your viewpoint on the matter.

 

[dust1n]

I hear ya, Dustin, but at least in cases of law in a secular society, you have a chance to change said laws. Good luck changing laws in a land governed by Sharia.

I suppose so, though it seems like my potential to change any unjust law is very low and highly unlikely.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

9-10ths, if you cannot already discern what my intended model would be then it is unlikely that I could make you understand with a lengthier explanation. I am not in favor of ANY religiously oriented arbitration, period.

This tells me what you DON'T want, not what you DO want. I'm sure that if you give the matter some thought, you'll be able to see the difference.

I would, quite happily, vote for repealing the authority of any existing religiously based forms of arbitration.

Again: by limiting all arbitration, or by setting up a double standard?

I propose a "one size, fits all" scenario.

I don't think you've proposed any scenario at all. You've complained about the status quo, but that's about it.

If you have issues with that, I am not particularly interested in your viewpoint on the matter.

And my patience is about done trying to get a straight answer out of you.

 

[YmirGF]

This tells me what you DON'T want, not what you DO want. I'm sure that if you give the matter some thought, you'll be able to see the difference.

And if you were somewhat less snarky you would probably already understand what I am saying. I would prefer to see a single system that is used by all citizens, regardless of their religious fixation. That would be a "plain vanilla" model that does not have any vested interest in the parties involved beyond helping them to arrive at an agreement. To use your term, "as I see fit" would merely mean that they take my concerns and the concerns of the other party seriously and help move both parties towards resolution. I do not care if the arbitrator is German, Jewish, Straight, an NDP hack, Black, Christian, Buddhist ... etc ... as their spiritual sentiments are of no importance to me - unless they bring those sentiments into the discussions - which I would perceive as deeply insulting and quite possibly, constituting an abuse of their position.

Again: by limiting all arbitration, or by setting up a double standard?

No double-standards. If arbitration needs to be limited in the process of conforming to "my model" - then so be it. The sooner, the better.

I don't think you've proposed any scenario at all. You've complained about the status quo, but that's about it.

Are you happier now?

And my patience is about done trying to get a straight answer out of you.

In all fairness, 9-10ths, I didn't expect to have to explain my thoughts about civil arbitration in this thread. I suppose I should have been clearer in the OP as to how I meant the enactment of "Sharia".

Lest there be any doubt whatsoever in your massive brain, let me be clear. I oppose any form of Sharia being practiced in secular society - be it in civil or criminal matters. In order to achieve that end, I would happily outlaw any special consideration made to any other religions, as well.

In Canada, I would be delighted to go as far as amending the Charter adding a proviso under the Freedom of Religion clause that that freedom does not extend to any practice that is currently against Canadian law and that the Charter cannot be used as a shield for furthering discriminatory practices.


No doubt, that will probably have you foaming at the mouth. Well, have at 'er.

 

[gnostic]

I can't speak for Ymir, but I'm opposed to binding arbitration of any kind. Arbitration is fine, provided that the parties have the right to withdraw from arbitration or to appeal the arbitrators' decision, but seems absurd to give greater authority to an arbitrator than to a district court.

The definition of arbitration is completely different to that of Muslims. Their meaning of arbitration and meditation are view as ultimatum and legally binding, and breaking is seen as treason.

Example of this, Muhammad himself. Muhammad himself was supposed to be mediator towards various tribes (including the Jews) living in Medina, and his judgment were view as law. It was an act of tyranny on Muhammad's part, because he view the Jewish-Medinan tribes as rebellious, and had those tribes thrown out for treason. Tyrant, because he acted more like a king instead of mediator or arbitrator. This was certainly not mediation or arbitration.

Arbitration and mediation involved compromise from 2 or more parties, and the acceptance of the resolution from all parties. Treason only existed, if Muhammad was a king of Medina, not if he was merely mediator or arbitrator.

 

[Tiapan]

I have a dispute with my neighbor which under the secular legal arbitration system I would lose, if the case is arbitrated under sharia I would win.
I want to go to the sharia court and win.
Oh I am non-muslim, is that a problem?

Cheers

One law for all

 

[Badran]

I think of idea of one law for all is right in general or on the surface. But applying it mindlessly is not good. There are differences between people, and the law is not perfect. So, if there is any other form of solving disputes, with the agreement of both sides involved, i can't see what is the problem. Its more like some people's problem with religion rather than anything else.

The definition of arbitration is completely different to that of Muslims. Their meaning of arbitration and meditation are view as ultimatum and legally binding, and breaking is seen as treason.

Thats not the case. Its not treason at all. Also, this will not be how it is enforced in a secular country as been explained. It would be applied under certain conditions.

I have a dispute with my neighbor which under the secular legal arbitration system I would lose, if the case is arbitrated under sharia I would win.
I want to go to the sharia court and win.
Oh I am non-muslim, is that a problem?

Well, if you want to be judged by sharia principles, and the other guy agrees, i think there is nothing wrong with that. And if its not, you can always have your own sort of arbitration.