Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK

[Will]

I think Britain - and the USA - has gone too far down the multicultural route to adopt a policy like that. The Australians have always been very fussy about who they let in, rather ironic for a country built on the basis of Britain's rejects. I do like the idea of preserving one's culture, but not sure about where the nation that gave the world Les Patterson as its cultural attache stands on that. A diet of Neighbours and Crocodile Dundee is not exactly culturally fulfilling. As the great Patterson admitted himself - 'there's more culture in a tub of yogurt than the whole of Australia'. [:D]

[Danny]

[quote user="Wilko"]

I expect you've seen this by now but, whilst not a zenophobe myself, I think it approaches the immigrant issue from a stand point of clarity, don't you?. 

[/quote]

Wilko, I'm not entirely sure what your purpose was in posting that, but you are right - it is quite clear.

Also - to me - extremely disturbing. I have been lurking along reading the various posts on this but you have drawn me in!

Absolutely incredible - and without the slightest hint of irony -

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths."

If only the US, UK, Australia and other countries were so accommodating as they gently immigrated recently in to certain Muslim countries.

Maybe our culture of "shock and awe" was just misunderstood by the locals. We are bringing you 'freedom' by - literally - ripping apart your families before your very eyes.

The message is clear to me: If you are Muslim, watch out. You are public enemy number one and it is only going to get worse for you.

And sadly, it is working. Fear provokes fear.

Jess, those islamist extremists are very necessary in this grand scheme. It would not work without them.

Rowan Williams' recent remarks and this discussion of Sharia law coming to the UK are just as much fuelling the fire. If people don't want Sharia Law they don't have to accept it. This fear of the unknown and being powerless in the face of the enemy is incredibly powerful and it works as long as people don't think and act. It is amazingly easy to get ordinary, decent people to allow extraordinary and indecent things to happen.  "Our values are under attack" etc. No, they are not. This is just total scaremongering. Basically translated means "You are weak, you don't have control" and "We know best"

I can't help but be reminded of Germany's glory days of propaganda and fear of the enemy last century. How could those ordinary citizens have allowed what happened there. It is very easily forgotten and so easy to get caught up in again except this time we are not the ones fighting fascism... 

It is just as easy to provoke easily manipulated extremists into being outraged and doing unspeakable things. Then "our values are under attack".... etc

On the other hand, if most people really gave a toss, then I wouldn't really feel the need to say all this.

On the whole,( I mean as a society or country) people get what they deserve - either through their choice or inaction or their capacity to be distracted. So, I suppose if the UK becomes a Muslim state - I don't know why that should be a negative thing any more than a Christian State would be - then it will be what the people want or should have.

Danny

[Gluestick]

Glad you all like the sobriquet, "Bunny Hugger": and most interesting to read about the Doberman breed!

Which rather nicely illustrates the point, for me.

One can be a social dynamics cause and effect myopic and Hug Bunnies: only to find out further down the line that they can and do bite!

Actually, the term was used not in the chasse sense but rather in the warm and cuddly meaning.

I fear British society has suffered too much, from the well intentioned, Ivory Tower Dwelling Do Gooding unconscious Liberal mindset. Or, if you like, Bunny Huggers!

Just yesterday I heard a prototypical apologist's statement concerning a young man who punched another and with one blow, killed him. In his defence, it was stated that he "Didn't know what he was doing; he was drunk at the time!"

Oh, that's alright then. Forget it; no problem.Wonderful, if in life, we could negate the effects of our careless actions and obligations by such excuse ridden polemic!

Society in Britain suffers increasingly from the results of such well-intentioned myopia: in jurisprudence; education; politics.

Sadly, in life, it is fairly critical to keep abreast of the Real World: no amount of strategy, developed whilst divorced from reality and predicated on what the developers would like to happen will actually ever work. The road to hell is paved by good intention.

Government, religious leaders, groups motivated by conscience can all rail against inequality, persecution, lack of equity, whatever.

Such well meant sentiments, however, will not change reality one whit: and despite government ministers constantly whittering on about multiculturalism and the values of ethnic difference etc, the sad fact is government screwed up on immigration and didn't succeed in managing the whole process effectively.

And now social, ethnic and cultural difference are growing apace; social tensions have never been more obvious.

Which is precisely why Dr William's misquoted ethos, is hugely unhelpful to the present situation.

As Harriet Harman's latest idiotic statement simply adds fuel to an extant fire!

There is absolutely nothing to prevent any group of persons, developing their own set of rules and tenets: as does Beth Din, the Jewish system of interpretation and application of Jewish law from the Torah and the Talmud. Beth Din are even responsible for application of Kosher laws for food, for example.

We all accept and abide by certain "laws" when we join a club, an association or like myself, professional body. When I play golf and with my golf club I am bound by the "laws" of golf and the club is bound by the EGU "laws" too. Unless I and it want to secede.

However, such "law" is not superior to or a replacement of the English and Welsh system of jurisprudence, which has to enjoy primacy. As EU law is now paramount to English, Welsh and Scottish law.

All that said, there are serious problems when one group desire to implement a set of rules on whatever ground or basis, which in part contradict the established rule of law.

Which is one of the core problems with shari'a law if and when taken to its extreme.

 

[Will]

Dr Williams was originally quoted as saying that he thought it was 'unavoidable' that some aspects of Sharia law would be incorporated into British law.

It seems that the outcry and debate following his speech has ensured that can never be the case - at least not in the foreseeable future.

Just for the record, what he actually said was: "But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable."

Anybody interested can read the full text of his speech here: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

The BNP, reporting their version of what the Archbishop said (which incidentally is the same as the Daily Mail's), include an on-line poll:

We Should introduce Sharia Law to the UK...

• The sooner the better.

• In the near future.

• Not for sometime yet.

• When Pigs Fly!

And just in case it is not clear which way you should vote, there is a helpful graphic:

[img]http://www.communicatewithimpact.com/images/flying_pig.gif[/img]

[:)]

 

[Russethouse]

What worries me most about all this is the way that Sharia law could be interpreted to disadvantage women, more so because I believe that young Muslim mothers play an important role in achieving a truly integrated society.

My feeling is that young Muslim women must be able to rely on the law of the land to protect them in just the same way as anyone else, if they do not have confidence in this, or feel there is one law for them and another for others it will just encourage division. Its going backward.

[raindog]

[quote user="Will"]

[img]http://www.communicatewithimpact.com/images/flying_pig.gif[/img]

[:)]

 

[/quote]

Does anyone else think this looks a bit like Le Pen?

[Jess]

Hi

A couple of points. Firstly to Hoddy.

Like yourself I am proud to say I am a feminist and the famous quote from Rebecca West pretty much says it all, although feminism seems to have been adopted by some as an insult these days, leaving women feeling uncomfortable about admitting that you are a feminist for fear of being called names such as "bunny hugger" etc.. in an attempt to ridicule what your opinions are. The quote is :-  "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

Sharia law in whatever form places women in the "doormat" position with little say over anything.

Danny mate, Sharia law is basically completely open to interpretation from whichever (male - of course!) scholar you seek advice/ruling from, and advice is wildly different within the sharia law depending on whether this said scholar is based in the "west" or in a state which is lead by islamic laws. You guessed it, the decisions are much harsher in the islamic state as their scholars do not understand the context in which those requesting advice live. Therefore this makes all sharia a complete farse, and a very very dangerous one. Danny you are looking at this with your western eyes and thinking rationally that of course if "the people - ie the muslim community" want it then they should have it. Well just to ask you - do you think women will have a say as to whether this decision (which will particularly apply to them) will involve them? No of course they won't - you are being way too idealistic in thinking this would happen - wake up and smell mega loads of coffee - as RH says, women won't be given a say and if they rely on UK law (which is what is used to counter this point) they will be not allowed to use it for fear of being cast out of their community/family - THERE WILL BE NO CHOICE IF YOU ARE A WOMAN - Sharia law will always discriminate against you even in the most simple cases. So like Hoddy, I am 150,000,000,000% against 1 single syllable of sharia law being applied because by DEFINITION it is completely unequal, unfair and so loosely based on very wide interpretation it has no place in a civilised world.

Look into it Danny, as your view just shows- as many people do -how naive we in the west view the sharia - thinking that afterall, it is based on solid religious concepts which of course can't be bad can they? YES THEY B****Y WELL CAN! As in all - it is based on current interpretation which without going over it again is unequal and discriminatory.

As I have said before it is this I am against not the personal choice of having a faith - but as with female circumcision which is part of some religions, in the UK we as civilised people would not let (or should not let) such practises happen because they are against human rights. The whole concept/basis of sharia is AGAINST human rights so ALL of it should be unacceptable.

Human rights should come become before religious rights if there is a conflict between the two.

[Russethouse]

Haven't we got to make a decision ?. We either want, or aim to have a truly integrated multi cultural society, realizing that we may sometimes fall short, but keeping those aims in view or we are content to have a society with separate but parallel communities?

My feeling is that giving Sharia law the green light in the UK would indicate that we are happy with separate communities, personally I don't feel that is the best option.

I acknowledge we have separate communities now in many ways, but that surely isn't a reason to stop trying for better integration.

[Will]

Whichever way you go could be interpreted as the start of a slippery slope, according to your point of view. Adopting aspects of Sharia law has been well covered. But insisting on British law alone would effectively outlaw established things like Kosher and Halal food shops.

 

[Gluestick]

[quote]But insisting on British law alone would effectively outlaw established things like Kosher and Halal food shops.[/quote]

Why?

All provided ethnic food shops conform to local hygiene and planning laws, they are pretty much allowed to sell what they wish.

And after all, much "regular" meat is processed, nowadays under Halal regulations and even non-Muslims are in fact eating it without actually realising!

The reason given by the abbatoirs, recently, was that it is more cost-effective.

As I said before, Will, many of us are bound by various rules and regulations which have nothing to do with the law of the land: that law, however, must always enjoy primacy.

If any society tried to operate a duopoly of laws where some tents contradicted others, chaos and anarchy would result.

Furthermore, the rights accorded under one law set would create justified protests of inequality under the contradictory legislation.

Which would be self-defeating, since the ethic of the core argument is to create greater equality!

 

[KathyF]

[quote user="ErnieY"]Hoorah for the Australian stance. Sadly, and tragically, the British seem to have neither the nerve nor stomach for such straight talk which reinforces my earlier comment that sooner or later the UK will become an Islamic state.[/quote]

So why did Australians reject John Howard so decisively in their recent general election that he actually lost his seat?!

[Deimos]

Ignoring the issue about aspects of sharia law being a good idea, the thing I find so bad in all this is how the A of C's comments have been mis-quoted and people then argue about the mis-quoted versions.  Particularly bad when the mis-quoted versions give a completely different idea to the one he raised.

And the mainstream politicians did it as well.  Not just the "lower end" newspapers but all of them.  I got the "wrong end of the stick" from the BBC TV news.  One thing the incident does seem to illustrate is that the truth is no longer relevant.  I think it will be difficult for cultures like the UK to progress where everything is leapt on and people are continually being called on to resign, etc.  People will end up being to reserved to say or do anything (even really good stuff) in case some paper can mis-quote it and they would lose their job.  Everybody puts their foot in their mouth on occasions - so what.  Its human nature and we should accept that not every idea is a good one but that people have and express ideas is very very important.

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc.

Ian

[Danny]

[quote user="Jess"]

Danny mate, Sharia law is basically completely open to interpretation from whichever (male - of course!) scholar you seek advice/ruling from, and advice is wildly different within the sharia law depending on whether this said scholar is based in the "west" or in a state which is lead by islamic laws. You guessed it, the decisions are much harsher in the islamic state as their scholars do not understand the context in which those requesting advice live. Therefore this makes all sharia a complete farse, and a very very dangerous one. Danny you are looking at this with your western eyes and thinking rationally that of course if "the people - ie the muslim community" want it then they should have it. Well just to ask you - do you think women will have a say as to whether this decision (which will particularly apply to them) will involve them? No of course they won't - you are being way too idealistic in thinking this would happen - wake up and smell mega loads of coffee - as RH says, women won't be given a say and if they rely on UK law (which is what is used to counter this point) they will be not allowed to use it for fear of being cast out of their community/family - THERE WILL BE NO CHOICE IF YOU ARE A WOMAN - Sharia law will always discriminate against you even in the most simple cases. So like Hoddy, I am 150,000,000,000% against 1 single syllable of sharia law being applied because by DEFINITION it is completely unequal, unfair and so loosely based on very wide interpretation it has no place in a civilised world.

Look into it Danny, as your view just shows- as many people do -how naive we in the west view the sharia - thinking that afterall, it is based on solid religious concepts which of course can't be bad can they? YES THEY B****Y WELL CAN! As in all - it is based on current interpretation which without going over it again is unequal and discriminatory.

[/quote]

Hi Jess, perhaps I did not express myself very well but it seems you have misunderstood the points I made. I did not suggest that "if"the people - ie the muslim community" want it then they should have it." I said:

"On the whole,( I mean as a society or country) people get what they deserve - either through their choice or inaction or their capacity to be distracted. So, I suppose if the UK becomes a Muslim state - I don't know why that should be a negative thing any more than a Christian State would be - then it will be what the people want or should have."

I don't know how you extrapolated from that, that I considered Sharia Law to be based on "solid religious concepts" or that I thought it was something that "can't be bad". Or how you thought that I was referring to Muslim people when I said "people get what they deserve" I was talking about the UK.

Just for your info, I have no time for any organised religion. And I have been a strident feminist for as long as I can remember.

It seems that you already think that Sharia Law is on its way and must be fought. Personally I think this agenda is being forced to create a conflict and we should not dramatize it and feed these fears.  Of course, it is full of barbarism and inequality. But it does not have to came to the UK or elsewhere. If on the other hand, it does come, in the future, it will be because the people - all of them in that country - allow it. That includes all the women of course too.

I know that you are very earnest in your loathing of inequality but all this talk is just fuelling the fear. And in the end it will not be Mr or ms lighter middleclass non-muslim average jo or joe who suffers. It will be the browner, muslim, mostly less well off who will  bear the brunt of the current climate. Especially all those who are women.

There is a lot of talk of crisis, as if huge civilisations which have stood for eons and have never before changed are on the brink of destruction. This is just nonsense. There is, in fact, no crisis at all. It is an illusion. Society and societies are always changing and therefore there is nothing to lose. Things will always be different to before. And they always will. It is why every generation is different. It is all a matter of confidence in what one believes. It takes effort to maintain things or fight for change.

As the historian Howard Zinn puts it: "You can't be neutral on a moving train" To me, this means that things are always going in a certain direction and if no one stops it or changes it, they too are moving that way and supporting it.

The current bandwagon is huge and it says we need an enemy and there is a huge military empire pushing it. Not easy to resist. I personally see the enemy elsewhere and they are not Muslim. As I said, I have no time for any religion Muslim, Christian or whatever - I find all of them ridiculous but this centuries' target is the muslim people just as last centuries' was the Jews.
There is no enemy - only other people. People are very easily scared of devils. It is reds under the beds all over again but this time the evil ones wear different clothes and turn to Mecca. Decisions to go to war and make certain laws are not taken by people in general but by a few particular folk. Sadly they manage to carry huge swathes of populations with them. 

The main problem for me is that most folk don't really give two hoots as long there is endless distraction in their lives. They are content to be led in whatever way is seen fit by dangerous people. If that is the case, could one not argue that they deserve exactly what they get?

Danny

 

[Will]

Gluestick, the comment about Kosher and Halal was tongue-in-cheek but with a degree of seriousness. By explanation, shops selling such things only exist because of Jewish and Muslim law (now where did we last hear a reference to the latter?). They are on the streets in Britain, France, USA and other inherently Christian countries because they are not illegal under the law of the respective land. To me it is a good example of British law co-existing with other codes. But to say that no part of Islamic law (sharia) can even be considered for inclusion in British law, which is what some are saying in response to the Archbishop, could be only a short step to outlawing Halal (which in the western sense refers specifically to the Islamic dietary code, the arabic word actually means 'permitted' in the general sense).

In fact the very etymology of this affair is interesting. Islam means, literally, 'total surrender to God'. A muslim, one who follows Islam, means literally 'one who submits to God'. So by that definition, the Archbishop himself could be considered a muslim. It goes further - muslims believe in the same God, and the same prophets, as Jews and Christians (although often under different names). In fact they regard Jesus as one of the prophets. The shahada is very close to the Apostles' Creed used in Christain worship. Where the religions part company is that Muslims believe Jews and Christians have put a different interpretation on the ancient texts. Aspects of these interpretations, such as the Christain belief in the Trinity, are thought to be false, in the case of the Trinity as it goes against the Islamic teaching of there being only one God.

I would suggest that there is almost as much divergence between the denominations of Islam (the two main, and opposing, being, as is well known, Sunni and Shi'a) as there is between Islam and Christianity. The well-publicised extremist Islamic clerics make a great thing of the idea of total surrender, particularly using the Shi'ite belief in divine justice. That they are able to gain such power and influence is down to the fact that Sharia (literally 'the path to the watering place') makes no distinction between Church and state.

So Halal, part of Islamic law, is already part of our culture - which perhaps proves the Archbishop's point.

[Russethouse]

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc

What is wrong with it is that Sharia law disadvantages women - please, lets not go backward.

Everyone being subject to the same law is an important part of our legal system. If anyone wants to live in the UK, it goes with territory, you obey the same rules and regulations as everyone else. My feeling is that we should not encourage a 'sub' culture, especially one where treating women badly/ poorly / in any way less than equal, is acceptable.

[Hagar]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

What is wrong with it is that Sharia law disadvantages women - please, lets not go backward.

[/quote] Surely that is also true of both the C of E and the Catholic Church.?  I am thinking of their refusals to ordain priests/bishops plus some rules on adoption practices.

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Everyone being subject to the same law is an important part of our legal system.

[/quote] Are not both the C of E and the Catholic Church exempt from sexual discrimination laws in England? Why should the Muslim faith be treated any differently. 

[quote user="Russethouse"] If anyone wants to live in the UK, it goes with territory, you obey the same rules and regulations as everyone else. [/quote] Sadly , I fear that many muslims living in the UK feel that they are continually subject  to "rules and regulations" that are NOT applied to everyone else.

rgds

Hagar

 

[Jess]

Here here RH!

Someone is making sense[I]

Will, what you are describing is all great but what we actually have in practice is far from the happy cosy little family image you give of religions happily co-existing side by side (although I would wish that were the case). The moderate muslim who just wants a personal faith is not the issue here. It's those that have subjugated islam and are trying to transform it into something very less benign from what you have described that we need to be considering here. Please if you have not read "The Islamist" by Ed Hussain then I would advise you to do so, for the picture portrayed by him - someone who has escaped from the radicalism of this form of islam - is not pretty and we should be taking what he and others like him say seriously, apart from the obvious issue of equal rights for women.

As for multi-cultualism I believe that we all in the UK can live together respecting each others differences BUT taking the laws and practices in the UK as the basis for living in the country - and if an element of a "new" culture contravenes the UK laws then this should not be acceptable. e.g. the discriminatory treatment of women.

We all need to have guidance/rules by which we should live by - otherwise anarchy rules. If some follow one code and others another with contrasting laws then it can not work.

 

[Jess]

PS I forgot to mention - what if you are gay - "god" help you then if sharia comes into play!

[Will]

Jess I agree with you, believe it or not. Just look at the violent conflicts between different Muslim denominations, not to mention between Catholics and Protestants in ancient and recent history. The Christians did not exactly come across as peace-loving multi-culturalists in the Crusades against the eastern infidels. Although I maintain that the majority of members of any mainstream religious group prefer peace, that does not prevent the activities of the headline-grabbing extremists. Sunnis, Shi'ites (the conflict between which I referred to in my last post), IRA, UDA - all as bad as each other.

As for gays - even in Britain acceptance is recent history. The 1967 act only legalised private liaison between males over 21 in England and Wales, it came much later in Scotland and Northern Ireland, many aspects of homosexuality remained criminalised until 1994, 2000 (only through invoking the Parliament Act) and 2003, even then with much opposition. And there are many in the C of E - though not the current Archbishop of Canterbury - for whom this is several steps too far.

Although women seem to be much more accepted now, the C of E still 'criminalised' divorced people up to very recently. Only since Dr Williams made it part of his manifesto, and the subsequent re-marriage of the Prince of Wales, have those of us with previous marriages been able to feel 'clean' as far as the Church is concerned. The Papists - who predominate in France of course - are still several steps behind in these respects.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc

What is wrong with it is that Sharia law disadvantages women - please, lets not go backward.

[/quote]

Which is my point.  From what little I know of sharia law, it covers a great deal and does not exclusively deal with how to treat women.  for example, the aspects of interest, loans and banking has little to do with women in society.  which is why I said "ASPECTS".  Men could start complaining about the way it treat men as well - but they don't as this is not what was being discussed and not what the A of C was suggesting.  All these women complaining about how sharia law treat women - please remember aspects of it treat men badly as well !!

[quote user="Russethouse"]

As far as sharia law goes - then I can see nothing wrong with looking at aspects and deciding if they could or should be incorporated into British Law (for everybody).  British law is certainly not perfect and it might have some good ideas that can be adopted.  As far as I can tell the Archbishop was not proposing that women lose all rights and become subservient.  I can find no direct reference to him proposing public floggings for speeding offences, etc

Everyone being subject to the same law is an important part of our legal system. If anyone wants to live in the UK, it goes with territory, you obey the same rules and regulations as everyone else. My feeling is that we should not encourage a 'sub' culture, especially one where treating women badly/ poorly / in any way less than equal, is acceptable.

[/quote]

If you read what I said (and what A of C also said rather than what the papers decided to turn it into) - I said "... incorporated into British law (for everybody)" - i.e. same law still applied to everybody whatever their religion.

I'm afraid I am not so arrogant to think that western society has all the answers.  I think in practice all cultures have good and bad ideas and I am not too proud to take the good ideas from other societies.  After all, if they are good ideas then everybody would benefit !!

Ian

[Russethouse]

Show me one part of sharia law where a man is disadvantaged and a woman is advantaged in any way they are not already in our society..

The fact is we have a workable system in the UK now, its not perfect but it continues to evolve, lets all stick to that, not give one sector of society any excuse to promote a system where women are not equal or abuse the law of this country by sighting another system.

I'm sorry Deimos, but unless you are a woman I doubt you can appreciate just how it makes women feel, and FWIW the 'phone ins' I have heard about this have had the majority of calls from Muslim women saying they do not want it. Even the mention of this topic by the A of C has made them more nervous.

Is any senior Muslim suggesting we adopt sharia laws into our own, or were they before the A of C spoke ?

 

[Deimos]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

Show me one part of sharia law where a man is disadvantaged and a woman is advantaged in any way they are not already in our society..

[/quote]

He has to go out to work, be the sole breadwinner for the family, etc..  She gets to stay at home.

Ian

[Deimos]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

I'm sorry Deimos, but unless you are a woman I doubt you can appreciate just how it makes women feel,

[/quote]

Failure to see things from "the other side" is one major failing of our society.  Women are always going on about "how bad it is for women", etc. (maybe it is, I'm not arguing about that here) - but they fail to see the advantages they get as well (and complain when these are cut back).  for example, women have a longer life expectancy than men yet get to retire 5 years earlier !!  (Nice if you can get it - and I appreciate that at last it is being slowly changed but without affecting too many too quickly !!).

But this is a bit "off-topic".

When I say "look at and maybe incorporate the better bits" why do you assume that means "incorporate the bits that are bad for women".  You must have a very poor impression of my character to make that assumption about what I was meaning.

Ian

[Russethouse]

[quote user="Deimos"][quote user="Russethouse"]

Show me one part of sharia law where a man is disadvantaged and a woman is advantaged in any way they are not already in our society..

[/quote]

He has to go out to work, be the sole breadwinner for the family, etc..  She gets to stay at home.

Ian
[/quote]

[:)][:)]  Only a man would think that ' getting to stay at home' was an advantage ![:)][:)]

What I fear is that if you start a 'pick and mix' attitude to the law there are those who may abuse the system.

[Wilko]

Maybe we already have sharia law ?? Seems like a good idea !!!!!

 

An Actual 1955 Good Housekeeping article.