Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it's any different then Churches who pass judgement on their attendees. Take for example Jehovah Witness if someone has broken the rules that person is dis-fellowship from the organization. Sharia law has no business being involved with government just like any other religion here.
Screw the U.K. They caved in. We are NOT a Muslim country. Just like so many in this forum state that we are not a Christian country. Therefore NO Sharia anything. So what next, Mexican courts for the southwestern US? Cuban, Puerto Rican or Jamaican courts for the southeastern US? Come on, this is getting ridiculous. We have one constitution and it is not authored by Muhammad.
Sharia or any other religious "courts" should not be allowed. We need to ensure the secular and rational nature of our legal system.
We already have Beth Din, Jewish courts, since 1960 so the precedent for religion based courts to arbitrate within their own communities already has a precedent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamban
Because women are a second class citizen in the Muslim world in most places where it is the dominant religion (aka middle east) they will feel intimidated by the Sharia courts and not get their full rights of the land they live in. They usually will be coerced into agreeing to such tribunals.
Although, not quite as extreme as the most conservative Muslim communities, many Jewish communities in the U.S. that frequently use Beth Din, Jewish courts, are very conservative, and by modern American standards, their women could be considered to be treated as second class citizens especially when it comes to their rights in Beth Din courts.
There is a disturbing new threat to agunot — women unable to obtain a religious divorce. And only those involved in contentious divorces know about it.
Rabbinical court judges are robbing these women of the civil liberties they are entitled to as United States citizens, insisting that agunot litigate all aspects of their divorce in batei din, religious courts. When they refuse to forfeit their right to litigate in civil court, batei din threaten them with a seruv, a contempt citation. A seruv can be published in newspapers, publicized in store windows and taped to lampposts. It informs a community that the person refuses to accept the jurisdiction of a beit din. It exposes a woman to public humiliation and ostracism at a time when the community should be mobilizing to support her.
No because we have both civil and criminal codes that equally apply in Democracies. Now conflict resolution maybe but its not law based.no different than two lawyers or individuals settling between the parties really. The vast majority of civil conflict are settled that way and have ben for years.
Should practicing Muslims be allowed to conduct their Sharia courts here in the US on civil matters? In the UK, they're allowed. What about the here in the US?
No...
Civil laws are already in place here. They can follow them, or break them and be found guilty of doing so.
Just one clarification on laws in The United Kingdom concerning civil Sharia courts: all parties involved must first agree to participate in the process. In 1996, The UK passed an arbitration act which allows virtually anyone to be the arbiter of a civil dispute, as long as all of those involved are willing. Civil disputes can be heard by Christian or Jewish tribunals, a group of co-workers, or any other permanent or ad hoc groups that can be agreed upon by the litigants.
The important thing to bear in mind is that criminal cases cannot be tried by such groups, nor can anyone be forced to participate in such civil proceedings.
It is already common in The United States for parties to settle disputes among themselves by use of various means of mediation or arbitration which fall short of the actual filing of civil torts. I don't see any reason why people of a given religious belief who agree to such terms should be prohibited from engaging in the process.
There is one very good reason for not allowing these quasi judicial courts. These "Religious" courts can coerce parties in such a way that many of the decisions are very unjust. For example, In a Muslim court, women's rights are not protected or are they equal in any way to men's rights. In Canada we used to have these kinds of courts and this is what happens. A woman gets really screwed over in a family law matter. She does not have to accept that decision and can pursue her case through the regular justice system. However she usually or most likely will not do it. She won't because she would face severe backlash from her family, friends, synagogue or mosque and the religious leaders there. So in other words she gets an unjust decision and she has to accept it or be shunned or outcast from her community.
Should practicing Muslims be allowed to conduct their Sharia courts here in the US on civil matters? In the UK, they're allowed. What about the here in the US?
if muslims in the USA demand or want to be living under sharia law, then let them move to a country that allows them to do exactly that. Americans live under American law, not sharia.
There is one very good reason for not allowing these quasi judicial courts. These "Religious" courts can coerce parties in such a way that many of the decisions are very unjust. For example, In a Muslim court, women's rights are not protected or are they equal in any way to men's rights. In Canada we used to have these kinds of courts and this is what happens. A woman gets really screwed over in a family law matter. She does not have to accept that decision and can pursue her case through the regular justice system. However she usually or most likely will not do it. She won't because she would face severe backlash from her family, friends, synagogue or mosque and the religious leaders there. So in other words she gets an unjust decision and she has to accept it or be shunned or outcast from her community.
I don't understand the point you're attempting to get at here.
You seem to be arguing that what you refer to as "'religious' courts" should be legally prohibited, even for parties who desire to use them as an alternative to the civil courts provided by the state. Your primary argument seems to be that you feel such tribunals coerce women into accepting decisions which you, as opposed to the actual women involved, find to constitute instances of gender disparity.
But
You also argue that these women are perfectly free, should they choose, to pursue the matter through secular courts. However, these women won't participate in secular court proceedings out of a fear of negative cultural repercussions.
It seems that under your definition of women's lives, when it comes to settling disputes, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If this is the case, why would religious/cultural tribunals be any worse than the secular court system?
You are opposed to the use of informal cultural/religious resolution processes--correct?
Your opposition is largely based upon a belief that such tribunals are unfair to women--correct?
You acknowledge that decisions made within these tribunals are not binding--correct?
You argue that state controlled civil courts (or "The Crown") are an option--correct?
You state that these same women choose not to use the state controlled civil courts out of a fear of cultural retribution--correct?
To quote form your first post: "So in other words she gets an unjust decision and she has to accept it or be shunned or outcast from her community."
So again the question arises, what's a woman to do? According to you, she can obtain justice from neither these unofficial tribunals nor from the formal civil courts operated by the government. Therefore what is the effective difference?
Last edited by Oldhag1; 02-02-2015 at 08:27 PM..
Reason: Watch with the borderline personal attacks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
