Should secular societies allow Sharia Law?

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

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.

You know what? That actually doesn't sound too bad.

But what's the catch? Also, what would be so bad about just integrating oneself into the secular culture, instead of trying to reform that culture to accommodate Sharia?

 

[Levite]

*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.

In America (and, I believe, in Britain also), Jews are permitted to contract with one another to use a Bet Din (Rabbinical court) as a binding arbitrator to disputes under the law. I see no reason why Muslims should not be able to do the same with a Sharia court.

Of course, this is only referring to civil cases involving personal disputes and business ventures, or sometimes arbitration of divorce or execution of wills, amongst Jews (or, in our case, hypothetically, Muslims and other Muslims), and does not include jurisdiction for felonies, violent crimes, or capital crimes. Those types of crimes should certainly be handled by the secular legal system in a secular society.

 

[Badran]

You know what? That actually doesn't sound too bad.

Glad to hear it.

But what's the catch?

Well, i'm not sure. But i think if this thing is done with a careful approach, Its possible there wouldn't be any.

Also, what would be so bad about just integrating oneself into the secular culture, instead of trying to reform that culture to accommodate Sharia?

This part i can't answer, because i don't really know the concerns and complaints of muslims in western secular governments. I can only guess, perhaps they struggle with certain laws or the process of the law in matters sharia would solve much more easier and faster.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Glad to hear it.



Well, i'm not sure. But i think if this thing is done with a careful approach, Its possible there wouldn't be any.



This part i can't answer, because i don't really know the concerns and complaints of muslims in western secular governments. I can only guess, perhaps they struggle with certain laws or the process of the law in matters sharia would solve much more easier and faster.

Hmm, I suppose that is possible. I guess what would help to see would be examples of Sharia currently in practice: Does it enhance human rights, detract from them, or just serve as an alternate system? Are their methods allowed to where if one of the parties feels wronged, they can go to the secular courts instead?

On a different note, my biggest beef with those scared of Sharia, is that many of them are the exact same ones that want to mix their own religion with politics. Don't remind them that God and Allah are one and the same... :tsk:

 

[kai]

You know what? That actually doesn't sound too bad.

But what's the catch? Also, what would be so bad about just integrating oneself into the secular culture, instead of trying to reform that culture to accommodate Sharia?

Islam and Sharia are the will of god, the creator of the universe, it doesn't integrate into anything its his way or the highway.( with the emphasis on his)




http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts

 

[Breathe]

I vote no.

Under no circumstances do I think sharia should be used in a secular country. If people want to live under sharia, it's their choice to do so in another nation that isn't mine. If they consider the nations where sharia is implemented to not be implementing it properly, it's their duty to sort it out.

Laws should not be for one group of people. You shouldn't get different laws to another group of people simply because you are of a different religion or race.

 

[Badran]

Hmm, I suppose that is possible. I guess what would help to see would be examples of Sharia currently in practice: Does it enhance human rights, detract from them, or just serve as an alternate system?

An example of the things proposed, is that when it comes to inheritance, divorce issues and the like, sharia would provide muslims with an easier/faster and/or their desired system of judgment on those issues, if all parties agrees on so. In other words, i would call it an alternate solution for certain problems, not in general.

Are their methods allowed to where if one of the parties feels wronged, they can go to the secular courts instead?

Yes, it won't and shouldn't apply to anybody who doesn't want it to. And if there was corruption or unfairness with the outcome of resorting to sharia arbitration, the final say is always to the law of the country. I'm not sure how this would be done, but i don't think its hard to provide these circumstances.

On a different note, my biggest beef with those scared of Sharia, is that many of them are the exact same ones that want to mix their own religion with politics. Don't remind them that God and Allah are one and the same... :tsk:

yeah i agree.

And for those who are worried about some of the more severe or cruel punishments, its worth mentioning once again that like it have been mentioned earlier, that this will not be dealing with crimes or capital punishments and so, only certain disputes.

 

[Badran]

Islam and Sharia are the will of god, the creator of the universe, it doesn't integrate into anything its his way or the highway.( with the emphasis on his)

I think you're confusing Islam's teachings and sharia. Sharia contain a lot of human work, so it is not sacred or unchangeable.

Also, some of the objections on sharia are unfounded. Like the objection that why men inherit twice what women do, thats because men are required by the law to support for their wife and children, while the woman is completely free to do what she will with her money. She is not required to share it with anybody.

 

[Yerda]

I think the issue is more difficult than anti-Islamic ranters suggest. That is about all I have to say at present.

 

[gnostic]

An example of the things proposed, is that when it comes to inheritance, divorce issues and the like, sharia would provide muslims with an easier/faster and/or their desired system of judgment on those issues, if all parties agrees on so. In other words, i would call it an alternate solution for certain problems, not in general.

Sharia doesn't work, and it especially won't work in secular society.

There are number of cases in divorce cases, between Muslim husbands and non-Muslim wives in Australia (I am sure it has happened in other western countries too).

Divorces are handled by Australian family courts/magistrates, and 80% of the times the custody of children are usually awarded to the women (should the women want custody).

I don't see how the Sharia would work, because they are more likely to award to the men. And what happen should a woman go through the secular system instead of Sharia one? I have seen reports where the women won custody through secular courts, only to have the men take the children out of the country (during visitations), to Lebanon or some other Muslim-populate countries. The men then went to Sharia courts of that country, where the children were awarded to the fathers, without the mothers present to their case. Each case, the Sharia court ruled that the secular court awarding to the women to be illegal, because it is not an Islamic court. ILLEGAL!!!

Do you notice the conflict between secular legal system and the Shariah one?

The most famous case in Australia, is the Jacqueline Gillespie-Raja Datuk Kamarul Bahrin Shah. Raja Bahrin is a Malaysian prince. They divorced in 1985, and Shah actually signed the paper to give custody to Gillespie, which was ratified in Family Court, but in 1991, Raja Bahrin abducted the children and took to Malaysia. She didn't see her children again until 2006, when they were old enough to go to Melbourne to see her.

The Sharia can never work if the Muslim men have the tendency to break the law of the country they were living in, to have it unfairly favoured against the women in the Sharia.

Sorry, but if Muslims can break the law when it suit them, what make you think the Sharia would make it better. We know that Sharia courts often and unfairly favoured the men more than women. It would seem men's words are worth 3 to 5 times more than women's words (and this is when both side are Muslims), because stupid rubbish like men are physically stronger than women.

 

[Badran]

Sharia doesn't work

How? In what way does it not work? and which sharia are we talking about? If what you have in mind is something like what happens in Iran or the like, then like i said earlier this is completely different.

and it especially won't work in secular society.

That is your opinion, and i understand the concerns you have.

There are number of cases in divorce cases, between Muslim husbands and non-Muslim wives in Australia (I am sure it has happened in other western countries too). Divorces are handled by Australian family courts/magistrates, and 80% of the times the custody of children are usually awarded to the women (should the women want custody).

Thats the way it is in most places i think, and so it should be.

I don't see how the Sharia would work, because they are more likely to award to the men. And what happen should a woman go through the secular system instead of Sharia one?

What happens if a woman decides to go through the law of the country? The law of the land? obviously nothing happens.

I have seen reports where the women won custody through secular courts, only to have the men take the children out of the country (during visitations), to Lebanon or some other Muslim-populate countries. The men then went to Sharia courts of that country, where the children were awarded to the fathers, without the mothers present to their case. Each case, the Sharia court ruled that the secular court awarding to the women to be illegal, because it is not an Islamic court. ILLEGAL!!!

So, this is an example of a man breaking the law, and escaping the country. The only resemblance i can see is that you mean that supposedly if sharia arbitrary is applied, and a woman wins the custody of her children through secular court, then a man can abduct them and/or resort to sharia arbitrary to override the country's law? that is obviously impossible.

Do you notice the conflict between secular legal system and the Shariah one?

You should not compare them like that to start with, because like i said numerous times the secular law of the country has the final say, or in other words there would be no competition between the two.

The Sharia can never work if the Muslim men have the tendency to break the law of the country they were living in, to have it unfairly favoured against the women in the Sharia.

No system would work if people misuse it, naturally. The difference is in such countries where supposedly sharia is applied today, corruption is allowed, which doesn't mean thats the way it has to be any where sharia is applied.

Sorry, but if Muslims can break the law when it suit them, what make you think the Sharia would make it better. We know that Sharia courts often and unfairly favoured the men more than women. It would seem men's words are worth 3 to 5 times more than women's words (and this is when both side are Muslims), because stupid rubbish like men are physically stronger than women.

Like i said, perhaps thats the way it is in some awful places, but that doesn't mean that sharia would be misused wherever it is applied, especially when applied under strict conditions like whats being proposed here.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't speak about other countries, but here in Brazil there is a general preference for letting disputes be settled out of common accord between the parts involved instead of by referee decree.

It makes sense, and there is no reason why it can't be tried according to religious principles as long as the people involved agree to do so.

To the extent that Sharia can be made to fit into such a model, I just don't see a reason not to allow it.

 

[gnostic]

So, this is an example of a man breaking the law, and escaping the country. The only resemblance i can see is that you mean that supposedly if sharia arbitrary is applied, and a woman wins the custody of her children through secular court, then a man can abduct them and/or resort to sharia arbitrary to override the country's law? that is obviously impossible.

Badran. What is an arbitration?

Is it not tried to settle a dispute between 2 (or more) people through arbitrator?

How do going off to another country with Sharia court, without the other side (the ex-wife) not be present, can be ever considered "arbitration"?

You did read my post did you not? In all the Australian cases, where the husbands ran off with the children to another country, the husbands presented his case Sharia court or arbitrator, without the wives presented to present her side of why she should have custody.

Did you know what the last runaway husband/father did, badran? He ran back to Lebanon with a child during the last major conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah Lebaneses. He practically put his own child in danger - in the war zone. What sort of father is he?

The so-called arbitrator in the Sharia, or Sharia court, have given the husbands custody of the children, without the wives been presented, can never be consider arbitration. You do know that it is so wrong on so many levels, don't you?

Is like Suddam Hussein holding an election, where he is the only candidate or his party is the only one present. And then he claimed victory, with 100% of the votes. Iraqis were celebrating a great victory. The election completely ignored the Shiite and the Kurdish provinces, because no one had bother to send ballot papers to those regions. That's not democracy.

You can't have arbitration which ONLY ONE PARTY being present and represented, to settle a dispute. Because to do so, it can never be considered arbitration.

That's why I don't think Sharia and this arbitration system would ever work in secular society. It would seem that Islamic judge, arbitrator, cleric or scholar even understand the word "arbitration" or how an arbitration should be carried out.

So my question to you, badran, is this:

Can arbitration be settled when only one side being represented at the arbitration?
​

 

[Badran]

So my question to you, badran, is this:

Can arbitration be settled when only one side being represented at the arbitration?
​

Of course it can not be settled when only one side being represented. However, there is a couple of points here:

1) One sided (male) favored ruling is not part of sharia principles, nor is it part of the judge's liberties. So what is it? corruption obviously in the cases you referred to, which i'm sure happens a lot.

2) That is not something hard at all to control in an advanced secular country. Because one of the main reason sharia is in such bad shape where it is applied, is due to corruption and the huge injustices that occur in middle east in general.

In other words, your objections are on the misusage of sharia by the judges, because if the judge didn't allow the man custody as long as the woman wasn't there, you wouldn't have a problem. So, its all about monitoring or supervision on the judges and the cases.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Of course it can not be settled when only one side being represented. However, there is a couple of points here:

1) One sided (male) favored ruling is not part of sharia principles, nor is it part of the judge's liberties. So what is it? corruption obviously in the cases you referred to, which i'm sure happens a lot.

2) That is not something hard at all to control in an advanced secular country. Because one of the main reason sharia is in such bad shape where it is applied, is due to corruption and the huge injustices that occur in middle east in general.

In other words, your objections are on the misusage of sharia by the judges, because if the judge didn't allow the man custody as long as the woman wasn't there, you wouldn't have a problem. So, its all about monitoring or supervision on the judges and the cases.

Let me enter the stage here badran.
I think you make a fundamental mistake. You assume that the ruling is good and humans "only fail" to act properly because of what you call corruption.
That viewpoint in my view is a wrong one EVEN if it were true.
For humans allways will fail now and then.
Therefore we need laws and rules that are not only "correct when applied correctly" but actually "hinder people to apply them wrongly".

Sharia courts all over the world show rulings that are against what today is considered by many the supreme standard "human rights".
Thats just a fact that can be observed and it doesnt actually help blaming the judges alone here. I could argue that many actually judge exactly how it is prescribed using the interpretation of the laws that you perhaps as more "open" or "modern" muslim dont agree with. You could argue that they are wrong in their viewpoints.
In any case it doesn't change the fact that these rulings exist and the only way to get rid of them is not the hope that suddenly cultures all around the globe will interpret things as you do but rather to have a law that can't be interpreted in the way they do.

Apart of that i come to my central postulation again...
Equal treatment of people demands equal rules and laws for these people.
Hence there must be one law for them all.

 

[Badran]

Let me enter the stage here badran.
I think you make a fundamental mistake. You assume that the ruling is good and humans "only fail" to act properly because of what you call corruption.
That viewpoint in my view is a wrong one EVEN if it were true.
For humans allways will fail now and then.
Therefore we need laws and rules that are not only "correct when applied correctly" but actually "hinder people to apply them wrongly".

I know what you mean, of course a law would be useless if it doesn't contain some sort of protection against misusage and corruption. What i meant is, people make laws, and they enforce them. And they are the main factor in how these rules are enforced. Since people in the west are more free and contribute more in what affects their lives, and are more active and less oppressed, the laws they live under project their status. In other words, just in case i didn't explain well enough, most places in which sharia is applied today (which is not a lot of countries) do not contain that kind of mentality as wide spread as it is in the west. So, people are not oppressed in such countries because sharia is bad, they are so because they do not fight against the corruption and the misusage of religious laws inflicted upon them. If people become more active and fight against the corrupt leaders who run their countries, things would change. Thats why mainly i think this would be much easier to do in a secular nation. Because it is easier to govern that sharia arbitrary system, and make sure that there is no such misusage.

Sharia courts all over the world show rulings that are against what today is considered by many the supreme standard "human rights".
Thats just a fact that can be observed and it doesnt actually help blaming the judges alone here. I could argue that many actually judge exactly how it is prescribed using the interpretation of the laws that you perhaps as more "open" or "modern" muslim dont agree with. You could argue that they are wrong in their viewpoints.
In any case it doesn't change the fact that these rulings exist and the only way to get rid of them is not the hope that suddenly cultures all around the globe will interpret things as you do but rather to have a law that can't be interpreted in the way they do.

I agree. I know there are some rules of sharia today that are pretty horrible. Although i think they are wrong and do not present islam at all, they are of course out there and being applied. Thats why i said if applied, it will only address certain things, or in other words it will not deal with crimes and such.

Apart of that i come to my central postulation again...
Equal treatment of people demands equal rules and laws for these people.
Hence there must be one law for them all.

I respect your opinion, because you believe in one law for all, not that you're against sharia in particular. Although i disagree, but i can understand that.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I know what you mean, of course a law would be useless if it doesn't contain some sort of protection against misusage and corruption. What i meant is, people make laws, and they enforce them. And they are the main factor in how these rules are enforced. Since people in the west are more free and contribute more in what affects their lives, and are more active and less oppressed, the laws they live under project their status. In other words, just in case i didn't explain well enough, most places in which sharia is applied today (which is not a lot of countries) do not contain that kind of mentality as wide spread as it is in the west. So, people are not oppressed in such countries because sharia is bad, they are so because they do not fight against the corruption and the misusage of religious laws inflicted upon them.

I have to disagree with you partially.
I agree that people do not rise up to injustices in arab countries for example. But i disagree when it comes to blaming all on their inability or lack of will to fight for human rights.
The problem lies deeper. For example in the fact that many there do not associate with human rights and its core values.
First of all let me say that religious law supposedly is ordained by God and therefore in principle can't be modified by humans. So part of what you wish for can't by definition ever happen.
Secondly (and that is one main problem) the laws that are applied are often NOT criticized. When you look at sharia courts in saudi arabia uterring the verdicts against a thief or an adulterer then you will see that the saudis don't disagree.
We are not talking about a misuse of laws here at all.
That being said i am of course willing to agree that there IS misuse.

I agree. I know there are some rules of sharia today that are pretty horrible. Although i think they are wrong and do not present islam at all, they are of course out there and being applied.

Well the trouble is that these laws (as you say yourself) do exist. We might discuss once if they do or don't represent islam. Their existence is not in dispute and that is a problem. No you want to solve it by doing the following:

Thats why i said if applied, it will only address certain things, or in other words it will not deal with crimes and such.

My argument would be very simple: Why a Sharia law in the west at all ?
As you stated yourself people in the west make and enforce laws. As such we can make and enforce the laws we see as best. If you yourself see some laws in the sharia system that are good you could try to get them into the current law system. No need to call it "sharia". Because first of all you stripped the sharia even in your own solution already from its absoluteness and many fields were according to islam it should apply. Secondly IF there is some supposedly good thing in it there is no need to make a second law named sharia(2) that only applied the good thing to muslims.

Hence in my view the best solution would be to improove the existing law system instead of setting something at its side for special cases of special people.

Apart of that let me remind you that there is nothing prohibiting people from "contracts" that could be used to settle disputes later.

I respect your opinion, because you believe in one law for all, not that you're against sharia in particular. Although i disagree, but i can understand that.

Thank you for your kind words.
Would you care to tell me why exactly you disagree?

 

[gnostic]

1) One sided (male) favored ruling is not part of sharia principles, nor is it part of the judge's liberties. So what is it? corruption obviously in the cases you referred to, which i'm sure happens a lot.

2) That is not something hard at all to control in an advanced secular country. Because one of the main reason sharia is in such bad shape where it is applied, is due to corruption and the huge injustices that occur in middle east in general.

In other words, your objections are on the misusage of sharia by the judges, because if the judge didn't allow the man custody as long as the woman wasn't there, you wouldn't have a problem. So, its all about monitoring or supervision on the judges and the cases.

Perhaps the judge, magistrate or the arbitrator who uses the Sharia law may have been corrupted. And that can be a problem...well, a big problem.

However, the law always required implementation, and it it is always up to the acting judge, to interpret the law and use the law as he see fit, in accordance with the current case or issue.

It really doesn't matter if the judge is corrupt or not. The law has been used by the judge.

But the core issue is this. You can speak of sharia principles all you want, but if it is not used because you are worry about corruption, then what is used for it being called "law".

You must understand the principles can only go far. It is the application of the legal principle that are important, not the principle by itself. A law not used, is a worthless and useless law. Law has to be implemented, and it is up to the judge to implement it. In the real world, we are more interested in implementation or application of the legal principles, not the principles alone.

I agreed with you that the Sharia judgments given about the divorce cases were unfair and unjust toward the Australian women, because the judgments were given without any of their presence to present their own case. It was not only sexist judgment against the women, it was also racist judgment because they are Australians.

The fact remains, these are the current application of the Sharia system.

I agree with you on some points that the corruption in the current Islamic legal system have caused injustice to occur. But I think the problem is even deeper than that.

If the Sharia law as good as you and other Muslims say they are, then should be mechanism to prevent corruption. Instead of making amendments to Sharia system, it is being implemented in the 21st century (and 20th century) with little successes. The world is ever-changing, and if the law can't change with time, then the Sharia principles have become outdated and archaic legal system.

 

[Badran]

I have to disagree with you partially.
I agree that people do not rise up to injustices in arab countries for example. But i disagree when it comes to blaming all on their inability or lack of will to fight for human rights.
The problem lies deeper. For example in the fact that many there do not associate with human rights and its core values.
First of all let me say that religious law supposedly is ordained by God and therefore in principle can't be modified by humans. So part of what you wish for can't by definition ever happen.
Secondly (and that is one main problem) the laws that are applied are often NOT criticized. When you look at sharia courts in saudi arabia uterring the verdicts against a thief or an adulterer then you will see that the saudis don't disagree.
We are not talking about a misuse of laws here at all.
That being said i am of course willing to agree that there IS misuse.

So, what you're saying is that aside from the misuse, their also another problem(s). I'm inclined to agree, because its probably not that simple. I'm not sure i understood you on what that is though (the other problem i mean), do you mean that another problem is that people in such countries do not value human rights?

For the part about religious laws can't be changed. This is another thing that i think causes a lot of people to worry about the idea of religious laws. Yes some basics would not change, at least i can't see a scenario which would require them to. But, in general thats not the case. A huge portion is indeed changeable because this is human work attempting to apply god's teachings. It is not bullet proof, neither it should allow anybody ultimate authority beyond questioning.

Well the trouble is that these laws (as you say yourself) do exist. We might discuss once if they do or don't represent islam. Their existence is not in dispute and that is a problem. No you want to solve it by doing the following:

My argument would be very simple: Why a Sharia law in the west at all ?
As you stated yourself people in the west make and enforce laws. As such we can make and enforce the laws we see as best. If you yourself see some laws in the sharia system that are good you could try to get them into the current law system. No need to call it "sharia". Because first of all you stripped the sharia even in your own solution already from its absoluteness and many fields were according to islam it should apply. Secondly IF there is some supposedly good thing in it there is no need to make a second law named sharia(2) that only applied the good thing to muslims.

Hence in my view the best solution would be to improove the existing law system instead of setting something at its side for special cases of special people.

Apart of that let me remind you that there is nothing prohibiting people from "contracts" that could be used to settle disputes later.

Well, if it were only regarding my opinion, i would agree with you that we should work to enhance the legal system and propose which ever new ideas we believe might be beneficial, but for some reason (which i'm not sure of), muslims in the west seem to need sharia, even more than muslims here. Perhaps (i'm just guessing) it is much easier to have an optional solution (arbitration) rather than wait until the law is changed to solve all their problems, i'm not sure though.

Thank you for your kind words.
Would you care to tell me why exactly you disagree?

You're welcome.

The reason i disagree is not with your aim to have one legal system that fits all, but rather the idea of stopping others from getting an arbitrary solution aside from the law, to solve their problems, under certain conditions. If one day the law changes and such problems that face muslims would be solved, may be then there would be no need for the other solution. Remember that like i said this partial sharia appliance will not be dealing with crimes or offenses and it will be or should be subject to some kind supervision, so i can't see why stop muslims from getting such thing, especially when it is available for others like it have been said in this thread. Also like i said it won't apply to anybody who doesn't want it to. So, your main goal is not at all the thing i disagree with, its the part about not allowing sharia arbitrary to exist, because i see all the valid reasons in the proposal to be accepted.

 

[Badran]

Perhaps the judge, magistrate or the arbitrator who uses the Sharia law may have been corrupted. And that can be a problem...well, a big problem.

However, the law always required implementation, and it it is always up to the acting judge, to interpret the law and use the law as he see fit, in accordance with the current case or issue.

It really doesn't matter if the judge is corrupt or not. The law has been used by the judge.

But the core issue is this. You can speak of sharia principles all you want, but if it is not used because you are worry about corruption, then what is used for it being called "law".

You must understand the principles can only go far. It is the application of the legal principle that are important, not the principle by itself. A law not used, is a worthless and useless law. Law has to be implemented, and it is up to the judge to implement it. In the real world, we are more interested in implementation or application of the legal principles, not the principles alone.

I agreed with you that the Sharia judgments given about the divorce cases were unfair and unjust toward the Australian women, because the judgments were given without any of their presence to present their own case. It was not only sexist judgment against the women, it was also racist judgment because they are Australians.

The fact remains, these are the current application of the Sharia system.

I agree with you on some points that the corruption in the current Islamic legal system have caused injustice to occur. But I think the problem is even deeper than that.

If the Sharia law as good as you and other Muslims say they are, then should be mechanism to prevent corruption. Instead of making amendments to Sharia system, it is being implemented in the 21st century (and 20th century) with little successes. The world is ever-changing, and if the law can't change with time, then the Sharia principles have become outdated and archaic legal system.

If i understand you correctly, and what you're saying is that sharia needs a lot of work to be fit to be applied, i completely agree. But that is when talking about a full appliance. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to make sharia law fit to run today.