What Do You Guys and Gals Think of Some of These Anti-Sharia Laws?

[LAGC]

I'm no big fan of Islam, any more than I am a fan of Christianity, and I think most of their rituals and practices (praying a certain direction five times a day, fasting during the day but not at night, washing of the feet, etc.) are pretty silly.

But I kind of agree with the ACLU's take, that this is just fear-mongering by the Christian supremacists. I mean, we already have protection against Islamic law ever becoming the law of the land anywhere in the U.S. -- its called the First Amendment. Separation of church and state. It applies to Islamic law just as much as it would apply to any Biblical law. So why discriminate against them if, say, the local high schools want to hold sports practices at night during Ramadan to accommodate their local Muslim communities?

I know some of the fear-mongers like to point to places like Britain where sharia courts run parallel to the Crown Courts, handling such things as divorce and inheritance, often favoring men to the detriment of women. I don't see such as a system passing Constitutional muster here, so it seems pointless to specifically target it by law.

I know Europe is struggling with just how much autonomy to give to its growing Islamic immigrant community, versus forcing them to assimilate, but I don't see most of the problems happening in certain countries over there happening here. Seems like if they wanted these folks to assimilate, it would help to reach out to them and lift them up, not let them become second-class citizens and resentful of the natives.

What's your thoughts on this topic?

[LeftishBrit]

1. I think they should forbid ANY situation where religious law trumps national law!

Not likely to happen with Sharia in the USA, but could with Christian dominance. Forbidding the Muslim variant, while promoting the Christian variant, seems hypocritical. And based fundamentally on xenophobia.

To clarify the British situation: Sharia courts don't run 'in parallel' with crown courts. There are some Sharia, as there are some rabbinical, courts; but the law of the land takes precedence over all other 'courts'.

Most of us would prefer not to have Sharia courts, rabbinical courts, or any other religion-based courts at all; but as long as the bishops sit in the House of Lords, there isn't much that can be done about it without total hypocrisy.

[awoke_in_2003]

4. I agree...

national law about all, god can go pound sand up his arse

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Yes, if anything, they run in parallel to arbitration services

This seems a good summary:

Where sharia poses genuine dilemmas for secular countries with big Muslim minorities is not in the realm of retribution but in its application to family matters such as divorce, inheritance and custody. English-speaking countries boast a strong tradition of settling disputes (commercial or personal) by legally binding arbitration. This already includes non-secular institutions such as longstanding rabbinical tribunals in Britain and many other countries, or Christian mediation services in North America. Now Islam-based outfits are entering the market.

Perhaps inevitably, the procedures and general ethos of Muslim mediation are very different from those of a secular court. Many of Britain’s 2m or so Muslims come from socially conservative parts of South Asia, such as rural Kashmir. The practice of sharia-based family law both reflects and to an extent mitigates that conservatism. A network of sharia councils—whose two main founders come from purist schools of Islam, the Deobandis and the Salafis—has offered rulings to thousands of troubled families since the 1980s. Much of their work involves women who have received civil divorces but need an Islamic one to remarry within their faith. The councils can overrule a husband’s objections. Few would decry this. But the woman may well also forfeit her mahr (marriage settlement). Critics call that unfair. They also complain that, when faced with domestic violence, these councils merely administer a scolding or prescribe an “anger-management” course, rather than the safe house and prosecution that the state-run system should offer.

Still, British sharia arbitrators may alleviate a peculiarly British woe. Some Muslim Britons contract an Islamic marriage (but not a civil one) and then fail to confer on the bride the marriage settlement that would be obligatory in say, Pakistan. If the union sunders, such men then escape their obligations under both English law and Pakistani custom. The councils advise against such deviousness.

A rival set-up, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals, now offers dispute resolution in half a dozen British cities. Founded in 2007 by followers of the Barelvi school of South Asian Islam, they are less strict than the Deobandis. But when asked to divide up an intestate’s assets, they follow Islamic law, giving daughters half as much as sons. The tribunals say they operate under the Arbitration Act of 1996. That makes rulings binding once both parties have given authority to the arbitrator.

http://www.economist.com/node/17249634

The problem is that there can be family pressure to agree to use the Sharia courts. If it were just the parties concerned (those divorcing, claiming inheritance, etc.), then they'd all have to freely agree to use this form of arbitration. But some (eg women in divorce cases) may be pressured into using them even if they're likely to be worse than the normal court system, on pain of being shunned, cut off from family etc. It might be better not to have the alternative offered, then hardliners wouldn't have the excuse to bully people into accepting unfair decisions.

[onager]

2. Stupid over-reaction, as usual...

Though having said that, I'm firmly opposed to having ANY religious law operating in the USA. Including those goofy Jewish Fundies who like to set up their own laws.

Usual Boring Personal Trivia - anyone who says Sharia law is "monolithic" or "universal" doesn't know much about it.

I've lived in 2 countries that were officially under Sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Those countries were as different as night and day.

In Saudi Arabia, the only uncovered women I saw were foreigners. Everything closed down for the Prayer Calls, and you did not want to get stuck on the street at that time. You might accidentally insult somebody, e.g., by stepping in front of them and blocking their prayer-beam to Mecca. The matowa - Religious Police - were a grim and omnipresent reminder of Allah's love. And they harassed everybody, including foreigners.

In Egypt, nothing closed for Prayer Call. Women wore pretty much what they wanted. Many young Muslim women wore bright, colorful hijabs with tight jeans and T-shirts. (Though the Muslim Brotherhood HATES that and frequently rants against it.) And if they wore black, it was a fashion statement, not a religious statement.

Especially when I was walking around Alexandria University, I would often see whole groups of female students walking together, laughing and talking. Some wore the hijab, some wore the full black abaya, others wore Western clothes. But they all seemed to be getting along with each other.

And in the local English-language newspaper, I could read "medical advice" from the amazing Dr. Heggy. I don't know how that guy got away with it. He must have had some powerful friends.

One of his articles told Egyptian women, "Your grandmothers had more rights than you do today. They helped lead the 1919 Revolution."

I'm very curious to see how this new Revolution ends up. The new Constitution promises freedom of religion. Article 2 of the old Constitution said the law of Egypt was Sharia. It was amended to add Sharia in 1980...a time when many Egyptians went to Saudi Arabia to work, and came back infected with Wahhabism.

Around the same time, for the same reason, all the public bars and belly-dance clubs closed in Egypt. Though the EBDU - Egyptian Belly Dancers Union - stayed in business. While I was there, the EBDU petitioned the Egyptian Parliament to ban copycat Russian/Ukrainian belly dancers from working in Egypt. The foreigners won that round, because they employed a lot of Egyptian hairdressers, make-up artists, etc. And that too was under Sharia law!

Oops, just thought of another anecdote: I lived for nearly 2 years in an American-owned hotel in Alexandria. Hotel employees were required to wear the corporate uniform, and I would often see them coming to work in the morning while I was outside, waiting to go to work myself.

Most of the women came to work wearing the hijab, though they were not allowed to wear it during work hours.

One feisty 19-yr-old Muslim woman named Asmaa never wore the hijab, and always came to work wearing Evil Clothing - the aforementioned tight jeans and top. When she saw me waiting to go to work, she would usually come over and chat with me. We saw each other in the hotel all the time, and I had lived there so long that some people thought I worked for the hotel myself.

Well, one morning, a bunch of Egyptian geezers were sitting outside the hotel gossiping and smoking, like geezers do all over the world. Asmaa came over to talk to me, and one of them said something to her in Arabic. I'm only guessing from facial expressions and body language, but I think the geezer said something like: "You should not be talking to that White Infidel Devil right here on the street!" And Asmaa responded with something like: "Mind your own f!cking business, old man." Whatever she said, it shut the guy up and he clearly wasn't happy about it. I thought it was funny, though.

[darkstar3]

3. The problem is that religious-based laws already exist in this country.

Blue laws, anyone? What about various behavioral control laws on the books in Utah?

I think the reason why the right wing Xtians are attempting to get out in front of this is because they recognize that people are beginning to reject the idea of religion mixing with law in general. The exposure of Sharia law to the rest of the world through media has given people a bad taste for theocracy, and that gave theocrats here a choice:

1. Allow their own brand to be (rightfully) rolled up together with currently unpopular forms of theocracy, or
2. Exploit the natural rejection of "the other" and come out against Sharia harder than anyone else.

By choosing #2, they separate themselves, and even set themselves up in opposition to, something we all find repugnant. And that has happened before, back in the '30s and '40s, when we ended up with "God" in our pledge and on our money.

There's bigotry and knee-jerk stupidity involved here, as onager pointed out, but I think that's simply being stoked and used to the advantage of some high-ranking evangelical assholes.

I don't sound like a tin-foil hat case, do I?

[backscatter712]

5. I wish they'd focus on Christian Sharia - seems way too many fundies want that implemented. nt

[Deep13]

6. Designed to stir up xenophobia.

The odds of Sharia being adopted anywhere in the USA are about one in crapdillion.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. They are awesome!

By outlawing Sharia Law, they are preventing anti-gay legislation, promoting equality for women, and encouraging tolerance for Jews...oh wait, no it's not! It is just another example of bigotry designed to make another group of people feel ostracized and set them apart as "the other." They passed some anti-Sharia law thing here in Oklahoma. There are what, 20 Muslims in Oklahoma?! It isn't exactly Mecca here; well, it is dry, dusty and hot, but still...

It is nothing more than fear-mongering at it's worst. With the exception of a few, and I mean a VERY small handful, Islamic nuts, most Muslims in the US are nothing more than run-of-the-mill Americans***. Personally, I feel creating this level of anti-Muslim feeling can have some serious backlash in creating persons who are more radicalized. I'd rather people focus on the Christian "nuts" as they are the ones making my life, and many others, a living Hell!

On Edit: ***Well whadya know! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1856264">Report: Muslim Americans Are Incredibly...... Normal

[Deep13]

9. There are a lot of Muslims at U.Akron where I go to school.

So far no explosions. Pretty sure the instructor in my Arabic language class is Muslim. Seems harmless, but I still keep an eye on him. Actually, I kind of have to do that anyway because he stands at the front of the class. I listen closely too. Again, I have to. Some of those Arabic words are hard to pronounce and I want to make sure I have it right. :eyes: