I have just deleted comments for abuse in an earlier post in this thread. This is a general warning that the next person to be overly aggressive will be suspended. You cannot pretend that your post is not aggressive merely by putting a smiley in it.

The thing is, Proxy, that I can spot the difference between a voluntary system of adjudication on civil matters, conducted between members of the same religion, and "establishing a global Islamic caliphate".

I'm not sure that you can.

>>Your multicultural relativism compels you to draw an equivalence between Jewish law and Sharia law where there is none.<<

Not the laws, Proxy. That's just being wilfully obtuse.

The equivalence is in the process of adjudication. The fact that they are adjudicating against a different set of religious values is not relevant here. I would have thought, that is obvious.

>>The reality of the situation is that the adjudication of domestic violence disputes will be resolved at the Sharia level<<

Not at all. The reality of the situation is that if the actions contravene relevant UK laws, the crime will be tried in UK courts. If, on the other hand, they do not, and those involved voluntarily accept the ruling of their co-religionists, what business is it of yours?

The key here is that you are mistaking a voluntarily entered-into administrative process for a replacement of the law of the land.

It quite specifically is not the case. And attempting to portray it as such is unnecessarily inflammatory.

>>...the woman dare not risk the community ostracism resulting from her appealing to the British system. To declare that this won't happen because Sharia law is de jure subject to English law is to bury one's head in the sand.<<

Domestic violence is not a uniquely religious issue, Proxy. So of course it will happen. Check your local women's hostel. You will find many painful stories - with zero religious connections - that for one reason or another haven't sought the protection of our Australian laws.

Your case rests entirely on painting the worst possible picture, and viewing it through the lens of your religious bias. To me, that is gratuitously insulting, to all concerned.

You're all over the shop Pericles.
Nobody is suggesting that only Muslims beat their wives.
The facts being related are that the Koran and hence Sharia law sanctions wife-beating.
This is beyond dispute, if we are allowed to debate this at an evidentiary level.
What is harder to demonstrate empirically but is supported by masses of anecdotal evidence, and which should be brought out into the open, is that Islamic women will be less likely to have recourse to Western justice in an environment which encourages dispute resolution at the Sharia law level, where wife-beating is sanctioned, where Sharia law is believed to be above Western law and where women who don't do as they're directed by their superiors (any menfolk) are likely to be ostracised or receive more of the same, if not worse.

Dear Proxy,

You claim that sharia law sanctions wife-beating,
and that this is "beyond dispute." Evidence please?

You're inferring that all Muslims interpret
the foundational texts in exactly the same way and
don't relate them to the changing conditions of the
countries in which they live. For example, under
Australian law, wife beating is a crime.

As Prof. Saeed points out, scholars exist in all
Muslim communities, including Australia. The role of
scholars is to interpret the foundational texts and to
relate them to the changing needs of Muslims throughout
the world. These scholars often work individually and
their works are circulated and debated. Some of their
views may be accepted, while others may be rejected by
the broader Muslim community.

It's therefore extremely difficult to contextualise Islam
within Australia and elsewhere as Islam is perceived and
lived in many different ways by Muslims around the world.
One can't put all 1200 million Muslims of the world in
one basket and label them all as "wife-beaters."

I find your arguments somewhat problematic.

Many thanks for these, Boaz

>>The Cantle Report... read it and weep Pericles.<<

I thought the task force report was illuminating, particularly with the "how did it happen" summary:

"That the disturbances were caused originally by criminal acts followed by deliberate attempts to turn the violent acts into racial confrontation."

So, it would appear that there were people in Burnley whose objective it was to stir up trouble between the different racial groups.

Add "different religious groups" to the mix, and I suspect there are such people everywhere.

Even here, in Australia.

Wouldn't you agree, Boaz?.

And on the very next page, we find:

"Burnley does have in its midst a number of people who are committed to racism and the fostering of race hatred. Tragically Burnley is not unique in this respect. Many of Britain’s towns and cities are targeted by the bigoted and dangerous people and right wing organisations who preach prejudice and intolerance."

I wonder who they might be referring to, Boaz.

Could it possibly be your brand-new friend Nick Griffin, and his BNP mates?

You might care to look at the 2010 General Election results for Burnley, too, to get an idea of how Burnley-ites view the troublemakers in their midst - BNP share-of-vote fell 13% since the 2005 election.

What I did gather from the reports - particularly the 2006 Cantle Review - is that the excesses of 2001 (nearly ten years ago now, Boaz; you might like to start updating your database) were addressed, and the community rebuilding continues. Far from falling apart under the weight of racial hatred, they appear to have taken some serious action, the fruits of which will be seen over the next few decades.

My personal take-away from reading both reports (again, my thanks for the references) is that no matter how hard you try to stir up trouble between different segments of the community, whether race, religion or football team, you will only be successful for a very short period of time.

Foxy,
Which is your preference?
A light beating?
A beating?
Or a scourging?

Three translations of Quran 004.034:

YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) BEAT them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and SCOURGE them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/004.qmt.html