Sharia Law

[robot lenin]

The Archbishop of Canterbury (the most senior member of the Church of England) recently stated that he supports the introduction of some aspects of Sharia Law (the religious law of the Islamic faith) in the UK, so that Muslims do not have to decide between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Now, I'm against all organised religion in equal measure, so why does the western legal system - which is clearly based on the Judeo-Christian faith - have primacy over the legal system of another faith. Admittedly, I find any kind of legal code which supports amputation of limbs - no matter how rarely - and stoning to death (see the Wikipedia entry) abhorrent, but maybe that's because I was brought up as a Christian and have therefore been brainwashed into supporting western values. I was just wondering if anyone had any views on the subject of why one legal code is seen as better than another in the west.

[Vanguard1917]

Admittedly, I find any kind of legal code which supports amputation of limbs - no matter how rarely - and stoning to death (see the Wikipedia entry) abhorrent, but maybe that's because I was brought up as a Christian and have therefore been brainwashed into supporting western values.

No need for any wishy-washy cultural relativism here. Sharia law is an affront to any conception of human liberty.



Now, I'm against all organised religion in equal measure, so why does the western legal system - which is clearly based on the Judeo-Christian faith - have primacy over the legal system of another faith.


If the British legal system is indeed, as you claim, 'based on the Judeo-Christian faith', then surely the answer is to call for a legal system that is secular and based on no religion at all? We can start by telling the Archbishop of Canterbury stay in his church and shut the fuck up about politics.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are already serious problems with the judicial system in every country, as shown by the prevalence of violent crime - Socialists should argue for a complete change in the way we think about the issues of justice and the origins of crime, because the use of internment (denying someone the right to move freely without obstruction) simply does not prevents deviants from committing further crimes once they completed their prison sentence, and locates crime as something that results from an individual failure to abide by social rules, whereas crime is, to varying degrees, the result of social conditions over which we, as individuals, have no control. Prison Abolition should not be restricted to the Anarchists - every Socialist should embrace this cause. We should, therefore, not oppose Sharia on the grounds that the current system is acceptable, but because Sharia would be far worse and would exacerbate existing problems.


Admittedly, I find any kind of legal code which supports amputation of limbs - no matter how rarely - and stoning to death (see the Wikipedia entry) abhorrent, but maybe that's because I was brought up as a Christian and have therefore been brainwashed into supporting western values.

This is a rather ambiguous comment. What do you mean by "western values"? Are you saying that respect for individual freedom (from abuse, in the form of permanent bodily harm) is part of Christian theology? A brief look at sections of the bible concerning the treatment of women and homosexuals shows that the Christian faith is just as violent, if not more so, than Islam.

I don't think its fair to say that the "western" legal system is "clearly" based on "Judeo-Christian faith" at least in it's unaltered form - if this were the case, those committing adultery would be sentenced to death, but it would be acceptable to own (and mistreat) slaves. Fortunately, we have moved on since the bible was written - our conceptions of morality, and the laws and institutions which form the judicial system, are, according to the marxist conception of history, dependent on and influenced by the mode of production - the development of capitalism has resulted in the introduction of civil rights, and the displacement of law based on a literal (or partial) interpretation of christian religious texts..

Islam has not undergone theological revision in the same way as Christianity (the reformation) because Islam is found in areas which have not yet undergone economic development due to imperialism.

Freedom is not specific to any culture or religion - it is a universal value which applies to all humans.

[Vanguard1917]

Freedom is not specific to any culture or religion - it is a universal value which applies to all humans.

Well put. That's what needs to be emphasised here against the 'multiculturalists'/cultural relativists.

[Holden Caulfield]

i watched the same TV show that robot lenin got his post from, same pharses and all,

Sharia law in the UK is bullshit and is a way of dividing the workers of Britain on the grounds of religious intolerance and rascism, let us all live under one system then let us all over throw it

in the words of the Sun today starting Shria law 'would hand a victory to al queda' if this doesnt spread hate and divisions i will eat my proverbial hat

[Sky]

Lenin's teachings always showed the need for sensitivity towards the culture and customs of oppressed nationalities. In a message to Comrade Chicherin, Lenin urged the need for tact and care not to offend the Moslems’ religious feelings in conducting anti-religious propaganda.
Volume 45, p.111 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/31.htm)

In districts where there is a Muslim majority independent communes with self-government should be formed. If the suffering Muslim majority so chooses, they should be given the right to uphold the Sharia. More than anything else, it is the Sharia which inspires Muslims in all countries to resist the imperialist enslavement of their nations. Muslims should be allowed to uphold the Sharia under socialism. As the situation in Turkestan today demonstrates, Islam will gradually fade away with progress in socialist construction. These ultra-leftist, dogmatic distortions of Islam and the teachings of Muhammed contain racist undertones and intolerance for one billion Muslims. By slandering the way of life one billion Muslims in characterizing their way of life as ''backward'' and ''barbaric'', some sections of the Ultra-Left are more or less striving to form an anti-Muslim coalition with Zionist racists and their agents like Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The religious-egalitarian ideal of Islam, the extreme ease of conversion, and the absence of an ecclesastical hierarchy contributed to the univerisilization of Islam. Islam in principle excludes mediators between man and god. The professional jurists-theoogians were not bearers of "divine grace" and unlike the Christian clergy had no exclusive right to perform religious ceremonies, to excommunicate, or to pardon sins. Islam, as a universal ideology of the peoples professing it, often objetively aided the rise of their national liberation movements, in turn assuring Islam's great influence in social life and rendering Islam's division into secular and religious spheres extremely problematic and uncertain.

[RNK]

There's a fine line between being against religion and being discriminatory to religious people. And that's a line many leftists have crossed.

Any establishment of any religious law, whether its from Islam or Christianity or Judaism, is a step in the wrong direction.

[robot lenin]

Actually hewhocontrolstheyouth, I didn't get the phrases from any TV show, cos I'm a student and too poor to get one/pay the license fee ;), so its probably just a massive coincidence. And I think I confused some people, I'm not saying that I agree necessarily with the Western legal system, or think that it is a direct translation of the Bible, but I do think that a lot of the principles of the theocracies which were formerly dominant in Europe remain, although they have been reformed.

And I agree with you Vanguard1917, I do support a secular constitution and legal system, and fully support a separation of church and state. But why is the western legal system good, or at least more favourable, than Sharia law? I'm not supporting it, and I am aware of its affronts to liberty, equality etc (actually it may be slightly more egalitarian than most western legal systems), but why are we necessarily right, I guess what I'm asking for is a justification of freedom, it was just a bad way to ask it!

[Comrade_Scott]

[QUOTE=robot lenin;1069986]
Now, I'm against all organised religion in equal measure, so why does the western legal system - which is clearly based on the Judeo-Christian faith - have primacy over the legal system of another faith. .[/QUOTE

because laws like history and everything else is written by the winners,and major forces at the time. and at the time christianity was the prevaling force in the UK

[Dros]

There's a fine line between being against religion and being discriminatory to religious people. And that's a line many leftists have crossed.

What?

[Dros]

That's what needs to be emphasised here against the 'multiculturalists'/cultural relativists.

Just as an aside about cultural relativism: I consider myself to be a "cultural relativist" but in a different way. I don't see any morality as objectively true. I see some elements of morality as being subjectively true in all cultures.

What I mean by cultural relativism is this (and I know this is different from other people's cultural relativism): I think all traditional systems of morality and religion are deeply corrupt. So it bothers me when people (usually christian or jewish people) talk about how aweful Islam is (not that it isn't) because that tacitly implies (or sometimes is just blatantly stated) that their system is better. That is what I (as a "cultural relativist") believe. They are all bad so saying one is worse doesn't make sense.

[Lenin II]

I think this guy is a fascist troll from Stormfront. Look at the switch he has pulled: he tries to slither "Judeo-Christian values" in and associates it with the "western" civilization. And yet he still maintains the virtual disclaimer that he is "against organized religion in any form" at the beginning of the article, a boilerplate seemingly stamped on there to disarm us.
Furthermore, he brings up the wickedness of Islam. A true leftist would recognize that both Christianity and Islam advocate the stoning of adulterers and killing of homosexuals, etc., and reject ALL religion as equally reactionary. But he brings it up as to sow seeds of bourgeoisie Islamophobia amongst us.

Most likely he is a white nationalist seeking our "red" opinion on why these "unwashed masses" of crazy Arabs and Muslims have invaded his pure white countries with their Sharia law.

Watch him.

[Holden Caulfield]

wooooo paranoid Stalinists, purge him for his word choice, purge him for his word choice!

(i agree with you really i just couldn't help myself)

[Lynx]

Sharia law in Ontario? No thank-you... (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html)

[black magick hustla]

He is Spark from thephora. To be honest, he isn't that bad, certainly we have here people worse than him.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

This is a terrible idea.

God/allah/iovha is the invention of man and so are his laws why trade one set of ancient and horribly outdated laws for a more restrictive one especially in a 'country devoted to progress?'

Why anyone should want to follow outdated religious laws in a secular society is far beyond me.

Religious tolerence is the problem. We should not tolerate religion!

[Sky]

We should not tolerate religion!
As long as religion survives in socialist society, believers must have guaranteed opportunity to freely participate in religious worship. The church is separated from the state, which does not interfere in the relationship of citizens to religion and religious beliefs. Thus, the state abides by the slogan of freedom of consciousness, which has been defended by Marxism-Leninism at all stages of its history. Under socialism, discrimination against believers is categorically forbidden.

Communists consider religious ideology to be unscientific. They therefore conduct atheistic propaganda on a scientific basis in order to liberate the consciousness of believers from religious prejudices and educate the population in the spirit of a scientific, materialist worldview. Communists require that all antireligious work be conducted by means of explanation and persuasion, without insults to the religious feelings of believers or infringement of their rights.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Check this out:





Living under an alien law


The scare stories about sharia can't hide the fact that "British justice" has always been about preserving the rule of the rich, writes Richard Seymour

The newspapers are terrified. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, has raised the suggestion that some forms of sharia law be introduced as a means of "constructive accommodation" with British Muslims.

The Sun raised the prospect of "medieval punishments" being inflicted on Britons, and complained that Williams was "giving heart to Muslim terrorists plotting our destruction".

The Telegraph explained to its readers that sharia is associated with "amputation of limbs, death by stoning or lashes" for such crimes as theft. Perhaps the Telegraph is concerned about its former proprietor, the convicted fraudster Lord Conrad Black. On their account, if he had been tried under sharia law he wouldn't have a limb left on his body.

However, even liberal opinion is expressing concern, arguing that Muslim women will experience reduced freedom if religious courts are allowed to adjudicate in matters of family life.

There is a further implication that what is proposed is somehow "alien". This is "a Christian country with Christian laws", according to the national director of the right wing pressure group Christian Voice. And Gordon Brown has conceded to this nationalist sentiment, arguing that "British law should be based on British values".

The scare stories have little to do with what is actually proposed. The archbishop called for allowances to be made for the practice of sharia law within the confines of English law, on a limited basis and with the mutual consent of everyone affected.

He argued, quite correctly, that there is a diversity of interpretation among Muslim jurists about what sharia entails, and endorsed the liberal variants. He pointed out that Britain already has separate arrangements for other religious communities. Orthodox Jews are entitled to work out some of their arrangements in a rabbinical court. Muslims can already choose to have disputes settled privately under sharia law. And there are already sharia-compliant products and services operating in Britain, for instance in banking.

So the hysteria is not really about anything Rowan Williams actually said. It is an expression of the Islamophobia that has been cultivated in the West as an obnoxious cultural counterpart to the "war on terror".

Meanwhile, the tabloids are several centuries behind on this scoop – Britain already has a system of alien laws. It is maintained in large part by right wing bigots in outlandish medieval costumes, such as the "law lords" or the "privy council".

Drawn from a ruling class with an alien culture – and values that most of us don't share – our overseers in wigs and cloaks have always been rather fond of telling us how to live.

They tell us who we can have sex with, and have even been given to legislating on what kind of sex we can have; under what conditions we may be married and to whom, and when we may divorce; what we can protest about, when and for how long; when we can strike, and for what we may strike; what we can consume, and where we can consume it.

Whether outlawing homosexuality, restricting abortion, or regulating the ingestion of recreational substances, these laws have never had anything to do with the values of ordinary people.

For example, at the moment, the state is considering restrictions on a woman's right to abortion. This campaign is being driven by right wing anti-abortionists such as Ann Widdecombe MP.

The fact that state control of the female body has resulted in the deaths of women in backstreet abortions doesn't stop these people calling themselves "pro-life" – but they represent a minority of the British people, and certainly a minority of women.

As usual, the trouble with the archbishop of Canterbury is not that he "went too far", but that he didn't go far enough. He rightly challenges the state's monopoly on public identity, but does so primarily in order to carve out a larger space for religious power.

One of Rowan Williams's political interventions in 2007 was to co-author a letter to the prime minister asking that Catholic adoption agencies be exempted from regulation that would compel them to consider gay people as adoptees. To put it another way – he asked the state to guarantee the Catholic church's right to operate homophobic policies.

In the case of sharia law, on one level Williams isn't asking the state to withdraw, but to get more involved in the regulation of religious and personal life. He suggests that certain forms of Islam are more acceptable than others – and that those variants ought to be encouraged and recognised by the state.

It is quite right that Muslims should have the same rights that any other religious group has – but the best way to ensure that is for the state to keep out of our moral lives. And a good first move in that direction would be to divest the Church of England of its peculiar privileges and authority.

The following should be read alongside this article:
» Sharia row triggers wider racist backlash (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14165)

Richard Seymour's book The Liberal Defence of Murder will be published by Verso later this year. He runs the Lenin's Tomb website at » leninology.blogspot.com (http://leninology.blogspot.com/)


http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=14164

And the follow up here:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/02/secularism-is-chimera-my-posish-on.html

[robot lenin]

I am no Fascist troll, and if I was why would I ask the opinions of people on the left. And Lenin II, don't have a go at me for trying to defend myself, ok my wording may have been unfortunate, but that doesn't make me a Nazi.

And I agree Sky, people who have a faith are of no harm to society. It is organised religion that is the problem: it originated to control the masses and therefore will always be destructive to any kind of workers' movement. I argue that ORGANISED religion should not be tolerated. Individual faith is fine.

[Atrus]

All law of the area is based on regional faith. The west is not an exception. Sharia law from the east is based on islam. Further east we find buddhist laws. Its just based on certain moral standards which are accepted from the past.
Hopefully after revolution we'll have a standard set of unbiased laws which do not take religion into consideration.

Also, I am not against religion, I believe it should be tolerated, but should have NO EFFECT on the state, and should not have hierarchal systems such as seen in the Catholic Church. Humans have freedom to believe whatever crazy shit they want, but it shouldn't affect other people.

[careyprice31]

The Archbishop of Canterbury (the most senior member of the Church of England) recently stated that he supports the introduction of some aspects of Sharia Law (the religious law of the Islamic faith) in the UK, so that Muslims do not have to decide between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Now, I'm against all organised religion in equal measure, so why does the western legal system - which is clearly based on the Judeo-Christian faith - have primacy over the legal system of another faith. Admittedly, I find any kind of legal code which supports amputation of limbs - no matter how rarely - and stoning to death (see the Wikipedia entry) abhorrent, but maybe that's because I was brought up as a Christian and have therefore been brainwashed into supporting western values. I was just wondering if anyone had any views on the subject of why one legal code is seen as better than another in the west.

They have tried to do this in Canada as recently as lika last year sometime. Some mUslims in Ontario, I think it was there, wanted to govern themselves under aspects of Sharia law but our government wouldn't allow it.

Yes Christianity has a long long history of believing their religion is the right one and everyone else is going to hell. At the time I heard of this, the imposing of one religion over another was not what bothered me the most. What bothered me is that Sharia laws are very dangerous, to women for example. I agree with the Canadian government disallowing any kind of a code that violates human rights.