Originally posted by no1marauder I don't oppose what Archbishop Williams was talking about i.e. leaving Muslims free to agree to arbitrate using Sharia Law certain areas of civil law in case of dispute.
Does the actual content of the Sharia civil code have any bearing on your assessment?
For example, would you be in favor of it if it called for a perpetrator of civil fraud to have his eye gouged out and given to his victim as punitive damages?
How about if it provided for a female victim of civil fraud to be entitled to only entitled to 80% restitution of actual damages, while male victims are entitled to full restitution?
Or how about if it didn't provide for females to have any standing at all to bring a civil claim; that only their husband could sue on their behalf?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Does the actual content of the Sharia civil code have any bearing on your assessment?
For example, would you be in favor of it if it called for a perpetrator of civil fraud to have his eye gouged out and given to his victim as punitive damages?
How about if it provided for a female victim of civil fraud to be entitled to only entitled to 80% restitution of actual damages, while male victims are entitled to full restitution?
Did you actually read Archbishop Williams' speech? I have a link somewhere where he specifically addresses said point.
No contractual agreements can violate basic fundamental rights.
EDIT: From the speech:
If any kind of plural jurisdiction is recognised, it would presumably have to be under the rubric that no 'supplementary' jurisdiction could have the power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights. This is in effect to mirror what a minority might themselves be requesting – that the situation should not arise where membership of one group restricted the freedom to live also as a member of an overlapping group, that (in this case) citizenship in a secular society should not necessitate the abandoning of religious discipline, any more than religious discipline should deprive one of access to liberties secured by the law of the land, to the common benefits of secular citizenship – or, better, to recognise that citizenship itself is a complex phenomenon not bound up with any one level of communal belonging but involving them all.
Originally posted by no1marauder Did you actually read Archbishop Williams' speech? I have a link somewhere where he specifically addresses said point.
No contractual agreements can violate basic fundamental rights.
Rania al-Baz had the option of a civil action to seek retribution (qisas) in the form of compensation or corporal punishment commensurate with the harm she sustained
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/retaliation.htm
Rania al-Baz had the option of a [b]civil action to seek retribution (qisas) in the form of compensation or corporal punishment
commensurate with the harm she sustained
[/b]So what?? It was a criminal case. A layman's (particular a layman with an obvious axe to grind) characterization of a case is not dispositive. A qisas court cannot be reasonably described as a civil one; it is merely an alternative form of disposition of a criminal matter.
Unless you are seriously asserting that you believe that the statements of the Archbishop lead to the conclusion that Muslims will be able to contract to have their eyes gouged out or have acid poured into them, then you are simply babbling. BTW, I don't see why you would have any problem with that anyway; I thought you were a big fan of Ayn Rand and laissez faire.
Originally posted by no1marauder So what?? It was a criminal case. A layman's (particular a layman with an obvious axe to grind) characterization of a case is not dispositive. A qisas court cannot be reasonably described as a civil one
Don't be simple. You well know that when a crime occurs, it almost always has a civil aspect that is handled separately from its criminal aspect. In the case described, the criminal aspect had already been disposed of: the guy got his lashes and imprisonment, thereby paying his debt to society. His civil debt to the victim still remained, which the victim could choose to have paid in the form of corporal punishment.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Don't be simple. You well know that when a crime occurs, it almost always has a civil aspect that is handled separately from its criminal aspect. In the case described, the criminal aspect had already been disposed of: the guy got his lashes and imprisonment, thereby paying his debt to society. His civil debt to the victim still remained, which the victim could choose to have paid in the form of corporal punishment.
You're contradicting yourself. Re-read your prior post.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Wrong. I don't want to have to embarrass you off the site again, but I will if it comes to that.
Don't start with that self-indulgent, delusional BS again.
Perhaps you and/or your Christian fundie source simply don't understand Qisas law. Fortunately for you, I'm willing to do your homework for you:
Islamic Law has an additional category of crimes that common law nations do not have. A qisas crime is one of retaliation. If you commit a qisas crime, the victim has a right to seek retribution and retaliation.
http://www.muhajabah.com/docstorage/hudud.htm
The whole section on Qisas crimes would be educational for you to study. I await your retraction of the claim that Qisas Courts are "civil".
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/top_ten_sharia.htm
See Point 8, regarding corporal punishment in civil cases: "Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye."
You do know that using answering-islam to bash Islam is the equivalent of applying answers-in-genesis to a discussion of evolution, or god-hates-fags to homosexuality.
Originally posted by serigado You're though. I have to be more precise making my comments.
When I say "why", I intend to say that on average, it was similarities (cultural, political, whatsoever) that led countries to aggregate like they are. People in a country have something in common (well... in most countries, at least). It there's not union or the divergences are too big, the te ...[text shortened]... ies respecting differences and leaving other countries alone, everyone would be happier"
The vast majority of countries were created by colonialists and had very little to do with the people who ended up living in them. The vast majority of people in the world today live in a country because that is where they were born and it is not easy to move to another country (I know I have tried and partially succeeded).
A significant number of people would move if given a chance. I would move to the US or UK if it was made reasonably easy to do so. My choice would be based on economic reasons rather than political.
Sharia law in Britain
12 Feb '08 22:363 edits
Back to Top