Shariah Rule in Britain?

Post Reply New Topic

I see your point, it is quite possible that that could be the end result...a genocide of Anglo-Saxons...but how many Welsh and Irish and Scots perished at the hand of Britons???

To get back to the original topic, I am seriously concerned about applying Sharia Law in the UK. Partly because I believe that it would be better if the UK was a secular country (and that goes for faith schools too), but also because Sharia is inherently unfair towards women. I have to admit that I don't know exactly which bits of the law are being used and which are not, but certainly the laws about divorce, inheritance and family life are discriminatory towards women. And although in theory if both parties agree there should be no problem, in practise it will be the woman who is under a lot of pressure from family and community to conform even though the outcome will be against her best interests. Most women, particularly foreign born, will be far too intimidated by the thought of losing their family and support from their community to demand judgement under normal British Law.

merrymadscientist, you have popped up a very interesting question. According to my personal belief, this is why women are given less inheritance and such -

Firstly, inheritance - Women are given a lesser share of their inheritance, because, when they get married, their husbands have to provide a Meher, which is a dowry. The Meher is a kind of insurance. Men, as you can see, have to provide them their Meher, and thus, need a higher inheritance. There are other reasons as well, such as, women are meant to raise their children properly and only work if the financial situation requires it to be so, not otherwise, as it's a very important duty for a woman to raise her children into good human beings. Obedience and virtue towards ones parents is a very important aspect in Islam, something which is not so common in the west due to lesser women being able to give complete attention when raising their children. Of course, there are many reasons, mostly cultural, however, this is also a very important reason.

Secondly, divorce - According to the Qur'an, divorce is permissible, however, it's the most hated of the permissible things (by Allah SWT). It is not recommended. However, there's an alternate divorce for women which your media does not speak about - Khula. You can read about it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khula

The pressure which you've mentioned is purely cultural, and differs from country to country. The same social pressure is present in Europe, in groups such as the Roma, and all over Christian Africa, in Buddhist countries, etc. It has nothing to do with religion. You may watch this nice video by Baba Ali (an American neopagan who converted to Islam), who's become a very popular internet celeb with Muslims and Non-Muslims alike: http://ummahfilms.blogspot.com/2006/07/ ... lture.html

You may read these articles on women in Islam if you wish to: http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm

As you can see, Women do indeed have many rights in Islam.

Please give me any specific questions, and I shall reply giving my personal view if I have an answer.

I couldn't agree more. With respect, if they wish to be governed by Sharia Law please move somewhere that offers it.

What they want is to have their cake and eat it; all the technological advancement of the West, free health care, welfare system and jobs yet also female repression, legal honour killings and enforced arranged marriage.

I do not expect anyone to give up their religion or practices, though many refuse to make any effort to assimilate our culture at all and expect the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate them.

Perhaps my cynisism is bordering on racism or xenophobia, however I feel no different regarding fundamentalist Muslims as I do about Christian creationalists, polygamous Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses. They all have one thing in common, a set of edicts that dicate how you show live your life and impeed your free-will under the guise of moral/social guidelines.

Religion is the root of all evil.

Very interesting, you agree with a Christian and comment at the end "religion is the root of all evil".

Just because I agree with what he said doesn't mean I don't loathe all religions equally. I'm sure there are many things I would agree with you about.

I know, I'm sorry. I just couldn't help finding that hilarious. ^^;;

However, your post shows that you have read nothing of the thread apart from the first post. I have already debunked these western views of Sharia. For example;

Purely cultural. Got nothing to do with Islam, in fact, the holy Qur'an forbids all of these. http://ummahfilms.blogspot.com/2006/07/ ... lture.html

I am sure that there were reasons for the Sharia being the way it was long ago, but in modern society these are no longer needed. I am afraid that for me, the idea of a man paying me to marry him (as effectively a dowry seems to be) is almost equivalent to prostitution. I am aware that obviously there are biological differences between men and women, but this should be no barrier to equal rights (and responsibilities) - and even if women do have more rights in Islam than many people believe, they do not have equal rights. I intensely dislike the idea that the woman is a property of her husband (bought by him) and that she shouldn't work unless necessary and should care for the children. It makes women purely into machines for breeding and keeping their husbands happy and not into individuals in their own right. Also, I am aware that pressure is cultural and social rather than strictly religious, but they are stronger in minority culturally distinct populations such as Muslims in the Uk than they are in wider society where we have become more open-minded and hopefully tolerant of people that defy cultural norms.

I looked at your link to Khula, and although I do not clearly understand how it differs from divorce through Sharia, this phrase struck me:

'Finally, it should also be remembered that a Khul’ agreement can only be carried out with the consent of the husband. The wife does not have the jurisdiction to enforce Khul’ without the consent of her husband. This is an agreed upon ruling in all of the four Sunni schools of Islamic law.'

So even for this special form of divorce 'for women' as you say, she requires her husbands permission first. This is not particularly useful for a woman trapped in a bad, maybe violent marriage with a man who is perfectly content to use her as a punchbag.

I am hoping that Islam and Sharia will find a way to modernise a bit. I prefer to be open-minded and tolerant towards religions, but, as a woman, I find it impossible to tolerate any inequality towards women and I think that any part of Sharia law which defies British or European laws (including gender equality laws) should not be allowed to stand as legally binding in the UK, even if both parties agree.

To study the necessity for Meher, one must study the situation in pre-Islamic Arabia. Female infanticide was very common. It's still common in India today. Thus, Meher gives a reason for a father to keep his daughter, as well as lesser inheritance. Meher is the earliest form of life insurance. You may interpret it as a form of prostitution, however, dowry has always come from the bride's family, and still continues to do so in India, Buddhist South East Asia, Christian Africa, etc. When it's from the bride's family, it's considered oppression, which is true. So how does it become "prostitution" when it's from the groom's family? It's a marriage, not a one hour sexual agreement. A woman is not a man's property, Islam liberated most people from this ignorant way of thinking. Unfortunately, some people mix their culture with Islam and label it as Islam.

Women are allowed to work and pursue a career, as long as it's halal, however, it's not recommended as raising children well is a top priority. It is indeed permissible.

Usually, regardless of whether a man agrees or not, when the wife returns the Meher and the Idaa (waiting period = three menstrual cycles) passes, the divorce is official.

“And it is not lawful for you (men) to take back (from your wives) any of your Mahr (bridal-money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage) which you have given them, except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allaah (e.g. to deal with each other on a fair basis). Then if you fear that they would not be able to keep the limits ordained by Allaah, then there is no sin on either of them if she gives back (the Mahr or a part of it) for her Al-Khul‘ (divorce)” [al-Baqarah 2:229]

If she's seeking divorce for no particular reason however, the husband must agree to it, for he has been wronged. Of course, all schools of thought differ in the method and validity of performing Khula, however, it is non-binding. The Shi'a are more open with Khula than the Sunni Madhabs, however, they have a strict waiting period.

Sharia is flexible, however, it can't go against the Qur'an. These basic laws of inheritance, divorce, marriage, etc, are embedded in the Qur'an. However, forceful implementation of prohibition of alcohol and drugs, forceful implementation of the hijab, etc, is not mentioned. Hence, the majority of Muslim nations do not prohibit alcohol by force nor implement a strict dress code.

Morning Khan, you are quite correct, I add my comments when I can squeeze them in and often don't have time to trawl through every page of a thread. You may debunk all you like, like me all you are doing is providing your personal opinions based upon what you believe to be true. Quite clearly what you perceive and what westerners perceive of Islam are going to differ significantly. I also suggest that if you are a Muslim yourself you are somewhat biased!

It's true what you said about it being cultural, I notice you're from India, where the Islamic community is wholly less militant. Indians are a tolerant and friendly people from my experience unlike my dealings with Middle Eastern Muslims. Personal experiences only so I can only comment on what I am and have been exposed to.

Can you explain why radicals develop into suicide bombers? Yes they may have been psychologically unhinged to start with and yes there may be many terrorists (IRA, ETA, etc) observant of other religions, yet none so prolific as follow Islam. 'Behead those who insult Islam' was adorned on a placard in a demonstration of that cartoon business some time ago. So that's a no to free speech then? With gestures like that, aren't people justified in there fear and suspicion of Islam?

Are you kidding? Dogs are great. We have three of 'em.

chever, is your avatar the logo of Anonymous?

Actually, I'm a former atheist and I used to loathe Islam to the core prior to reverting. Long story.



I've noticed that Middle Eastern Muslims are more easy going, although conservative, mainly the ones from the gulf coast. I don't know about the rest of the Arab world. Terrorism is a reality in India, with both Hindu, Muslim, and recently, Christian terrorists. Sikh terrorists are no longer active. The middle eastern countries I've gone to (Oman, UAE) has no militant activity. McDonalds burders are the staple food there, after all.



I don't know. There are 3 million Muslims in my city, a little over half the population. I don't know any radicals. Heck, I don't even know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone (etc) who knows a radical. The origins of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban are American. Both outfits were funded by the CIA during the war in Afghanistan against Russia. Their ideology of terrorism originated from their CIA trainers. The only legitimate outfit (which you consider terroririst) which I recognise is Hezbollah, not even Hamas. As far as I'm concerned, the rest are trash who don't respect the basic tenents of Islam. Fundamentalists exist in every society. You know that. Anyone can be fundamentalist about their ideology, whether it's religious or secular. 1 out of 5 people is Muslim. How come suicide bombings and such were unheard of prior to 9/11?

The first terrorist was Guy Fawkes, a Roman Catholic.

The only person I've met (in my whole life) who comes close to being a fundamentalist is a convert from New Zealand (100% white) who added me, and he advocated burning down brothels and alcohol shops, lol!

Prior to 9/11, very few Muslims knew who Osama Bin Laden was and what Al Qaeda stood for. Heck, most were even unaware of the Taliban, which had full US support till 9/11.

Oh, btw, prior to 1980, before the CIA trained Al-Qaeda and Taliban existed, Afghanistan provided 0% of the world's heroin (most came from Burma). By 1996, Afghanistan provided 80% of the world's heroin. Then, the Taliban abolished Poppy cultivation, and it dropped back down to 0%. After 9/11, after the overthrow of the Taliban, once again, Afghanistan provides 4/5th of the international heroin supply.



I used to own a German Sheperd. He died. I still like dogs a lot, own a cat now though. ^^

the Koran did not know then that dogs are useful for the blind and as sniffer dogs ...or a delicacy in China and great performers in circus acts

Last edited by Loborojo on 10 Oct 2008, 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Qur'an does not mention any prohibition on owning dogs. That's the prophet's (SAW) recommendation based on Gabriel's (AHS) refusal to enter an area where there's a canine present.

The dog is mentioned in two suras, three aya:

(1) (Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth,- doubtfully guessing at the unknown; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say thou: "My Lord knoweth best their number; It is but few that know their (real case)." Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a matter that is clear, nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers. (Al-Kahf: 22)
(2) Thou wouldst have deemed them awake, whilst they were asleep, and We turned them on their right and on their left sides: their dog stretching forth his two fore-legs on the threshold: if thou hadst come up on to them, thou wouldst have certainly turned back from them in flight, and wouldst certainly have been filled with terror of them. (Al-Kahf: 18 )
(3) If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect. (Al-A'raaf: 176)

We don't hate dogs. We believe that they're created for a purpose. It's only good to utilise them for these reasons, not unecessarily.