Through Q&A this week, I saw Islamic youth leader Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Senator Jacqui Lambie clash over views on sharia law.

The problem I felt, was a feeling that Sharia Law was being taken as an inner growth factor, when it was stated by Yassmin that, in response to Jacqui Lambie: "Do you even know what Sharia Law is? Me praying five times a day is Sharia."

Considering many people benefit and develop, in some way from prayer, I was very concerned about her comment in that context.

My view is that Sharia law does not, and in fact any law, have any impact on personal growth.

Law in itself is very retrospective. That being something that has been brought in as a response to something, it is not something that naturally creates itself, or floats into someones mind like a dream.

Development of individuals comes from within ones own inner self and comes in over time through things like reflection, thought, personal development and natural change.

What do you think?

If Muslims believe that Allah gave their laws then that's what the inner growth is based on. Prayer and Sharia are from big Al.
A parallel may be Catholic rules about marriage to non-Catholics : piety and Church Law are practiced together . The marriage law is separate from state laws on marriage ( anyone can marry ).

nnn, 'Islam and its impact on women's lives and wellbeing? Here is a diversion to occupy you instead'

You are so hip, NNN.

If it had been violence against women in any other area of life,Tony Jones and the Q&A audience would have been all over it like a rash.

what a loud mouth rude insolent young 'lady' Yasmin showed herself to be on Q & A.

Most religion has been evil. It has been used to control people, rather than to enhance their lives. Christianity was as it was practiced in the middle ages was a nasty thing, as is the Sharia form of Islam today.

The last thing we need is this garbage introduced to Oz. What we have now is far too much of this vicious people controlling evil already.

Evil garbage.
"During the 12 months ended January 2017 Australia, there were 1,290 road deaths."

" Locomotive Acts (also known as Red Flag Laws) was a policy requiring self-propelled vehicles to be led by a pedestrian waving a red flag or carrying a lantern to warn bystanders of the vehicle's approach.
Firstly, at least three persons shall be employed to drive or conduct..
Secondly, one of such persons shall precede on foot by not less than sixty yards, and shall carry a red flag constantly displayed, and shall warn the riders and drivers of horses, and shall signal the driver thereof when it shall be necessary to stop, and shall assist horses, and carriages drawn by horses, passing the same,".
-
Some of these deluded medieval trash wash, wax and polish, vacuum and place new offerings to the engine and the motor-spirit vehicle is enshrined in its own chamber.

Dear Nathan,

I think that what Senator Lambie was trying to point
out was that in this country we have one system of
law that we are all expected to abide by. Religious
laws have no legal status. We are a secular State.

Having said that, it might be better for us rather
than arguing about the claims and counter-claims
about what Sharia Law really stands for, we might
be better to pay more attention to how advocates
of that faith choose to live their lives.

That way, it might be easier to avoid making
assumptions about what their religion might mean,
and instead focus more on how the faithful live.
The enemy of humanity is not religion, but those
who pursue acts of terror and violence in the
name of religion. As a wise person once stated -
"the world is bleeding to death through
misunderstanding." That's why it makes sense
to not have religious laws as part of our legal
system in this country.

Ms Abdel-Magied: “Islam to me is the most feminist religion, right”

Feminists obviously agree because there is no outcry from them. Not even an embarrassed murmur. Rather, she is praised and feels smug for it.

A man looks at his watch and that is misogyny - hatred of women.

Foxy,

Do please read the Koran.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote;

“Religious laws have no legal status.”

Untrue I'm afraid.

“But just hours before the vote on his future was due to be held, the rabbi successfully argued in the NSW Supreme Court that the matter should be heard according to Jewish law and the case was shifted to the London Beth Din, the Court of the Chief Rabbi, which recently ruled in favour of the rabbi. “

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/dumped-sydney-rabbi-moshe-gutnick-wins-1m-payout/news-story/988c15f33522afcf02a527da17ace8fa?nk=13e4ad793ad2d02fcd57d8fad318865b-1487131747

Nathan,

Sharia law is absolute rubbish; there is no need to come over all philosophical about it.

Hasbeen,

It is neither necessary nor helpful to drag up way out of date, Old Testament descriptions of Christianity. Modern Christianity bears no relation to Islam at all. Relativist talk to let Islam of the hook really pisses me off.

Dear Steele,

The example that you cited did not occur within
our normal legal system. It occurred outside it.
The link below might explain how this happened.
It's worth a read.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/rabbis-to-settle-jewish-disputes-in-special-court/news-story/08dda8afcd8c3b27eb7a45c518c65d01

In the UK they have been forced to recognise Islamic courts and there
are many of them around the UK. So they had, I presume, to allow Jewish courts.
Any decision they make is not enforceable in Australia I believe.
It would be just a personal agreement between themselves.

In most countries where Sharia law is active Ms Abdel-Magied would of been beaten and whipped at minnimum for her rude, arrogant and self opinionated behaviour. Interesting to see the getup clowns cheering her.

Good that it was Lambie, and not some prissy PC type, who felt able to shout right back at the Muslim woman. It is a trait of Muslims to shout, believing that the loudest voice wins.

Dear Foxy,

You wrote;

“The example that you cited did not occur within
our normal legal system. It occurred outside it.”

It certainly occurred within our legal system right up until it was handed over to a religious court in a foreign land. This was a decision from our own courts to do so . Why shouldn't this be considered wrong? Workplace laws and commercial arrangements within our own country should remain here don't you think?

From your link;

“VICTORIA'S Jewish community has set up a special court to resolve disputes involving its members. Specially trained rabbis will handle civil and commercial issues using a combination of Jewish and Australian law. The court, known as a Beth Din, has previously only dealt with matters relating to divorce and the conversion to Judaism.”

The ultimate authority remains in London. Imagine if Islamic law case within this country was allowed to be decided upon by a Pakistani court.

In that case a commercial dispute would be settled by 2 agreeable sides. Do you think Pakistani jihadis would enforce the decision by sending ATM spyware to suck all the loser's funds from Melbourne to Al Qaeda?

Dear Steele,

From my understanding as the Rabbinical Council
President of Victoria explained in the link I cited,

"The (Jewish) court would offer parties arbitration and
mediation to resolve disputes so they wouldn't need to
go through the normal legal system. It's not trying to go
beyond the law - quite the opposite - its trying to
support the law by creating a venue with the community
to resolve disputes."

It was the Jewish court in London that was asked to
resolve the Jewish matter. I don't believe it conflicted in
any way with any of our laws.

Foxy as usual you are trying to take a middle ground and look on the
matter with the kindest of eyes.
However, this is not the place for it this time.
Sharia; A woman's word in evidence is worth only half of a man's evidence.
If a woman is to prove rape she has to find four men to give evidence.
If she cannot she is considered to be an adulterous and the punishment is death.
They do not always execute her for that but imprisonment is common.
What chance do you think that gives her.
In Europe at present it would be the four men who raped her.

Dearest Foxy,

You' re absolutely right:

"I think that what Senator Lambie was trying to point out was that in this country we have one system of law that we are all expected to abide by. Religious laws have no legal status. We are a secular State."

Uncanny ! Almost by chance, I put this up on another thread:

"As an atheist, I suggest that one can interact with other people .... regardless of whether or not one has a religious backing. Of course, we need to be tolerant and open to other people (except to those who are INtolerant) and to try to understand where they are coming from.

That certainly does not mean that we have to be silent about injustices done to our fellow-Australians merely by virtue of their gender, as (perhaps I'm wrong ?) Yassmin Abdel-Magied seemed so ready to gloss over on Monday's Q & A.

Thanks to our general system of law, which applies to and for everyone (or should), women formally have the same rights as men. That certainly cannot be said, as Yassmin tried to assert, about the situation for women in Muslim countries. When women there can:

* wear whatever they like, whenever they like,

* when FGM and honor killing have been extinguished from the face of the earth, and

* when women can leave the house without getting a man's permission, or having to be accompanied by a male relative,

* when they can drive alone and

* when they can study anything they like at university,

then we can start to talk about Islam and its links to feminism. Any other prattle may well be simply a manifestation of a lifelong Stockholm Syndrome."

I'm gobsmacked that, as far as I can tell, no Australian feminist has had the courage to rebut any of Ms Abdel-Magied's assertions. What on earth did any of them ever sign up for ? What vapid pretence of feminism do they support these days ?

They could all learn a lot from Senator Lambie. God, I never thought I would ever write that.

Joe

Dear Bazz,

I've consistently stated on this forum that I
firmly believe if a person wants to live under
sharia law there are countries where they might feel
at ease. But not in Australia. We are asking all
the people of this country to subscribe to a framework
that can protect the rights and liberties of all.
We have a robust tolerance of difference in our society.
But to maintain this tolerance we have an agreed
framework which will protect protect the rights and
liberties of us all. Therefore there is an institutional
framework - one law we are all expected to abide by.
It is the law enacted by the Parliament under the
Australian Constitution.

Dear Joe,

I quite like Jacqui Lambie.I Have done from the beginning.
She's a straight shooter and we certainly could use more
straight shooters in our Parliament who have the courage
to put the interests of their electorate and the nation
above those of their party's political agendas or their
own ambitions.

Peter Costello in his Memoirs wrote:

"My eighteen years in Parliament - in Opposition and in
Government - have confirmed me in the conviction, formed
in my youth, that politics, for all its rough edges, is a
civilised and civilising calling. Despite all the obloquy
shovelled on the head of politicians, they are men and
women who work the machinery of our liberal democratic
way of life. They reflect public opinion - and at their
best lead public opinion - and transmute it into laws
that shape our society and our country."

Sharia or Jewish law in the west only applies where all parties in dispute agree to having it. It doesn't apply to crimes but only to personal agreements.
".. whether the Australian legal system, at this point in time, should give limited recognition to Shariah law in resolving disputes between Muslim Australians. Could we recognise and
endorse the authority of Imams or Islamic scholars, boards or tribunals to make determinations in accordance with Islamic legal norms in the resolution of family, inheritance and other inter-personal disputes between Muslims in this country? As is evident from the Archbishop’s ( of Canterbury) statement, Australia is not alone .."_ Uni Qld.

On The White Knights of Islam,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marginoferr/2014/10/17/4-fictional-arguments-that-the-liberal-defenders-of-islam-have-thoroughly-debunked/#disqus_thread

Sharia law is in its very nature sexist, homophobic and religiously intolerant.

Australian law must always take precedence. Someone can agree to submit to sharia law, but should always be allowed to change their minds later.

Similarly the Burqa is the most powerful symbol of the oppression of women, and religious extremism.

"Someone can agree to submit to sharia law".
Absolutely , spoken like a merciful sheik and benificent sultan.
When I see women going to Mass in the mantilla I feel like Trump does
and just grab whatever is on offer.

G'day Joe.

Contrast the media shrilling on Islamic FGM/ laws to this little gem from 2013...

"In the Northern Territory the judiciary has recently provided formal acknowledgement of the crucial role of Aboriginal interpreters, but the increasing presence and acceptance in Northern Territory courtrooms of traditional Aboriginal languages should not be mistaken for an increasing presence or acceptance of traditional Aboriginal law in Northern Territory courts. Indeed, it is arguable that legal interpreters will increasingly be required not just to work as bridge builders to span the gulf of misunderstanding between yapa and kardiya. They may also be required to take on a less appealing gate-keeping task, to do the dirty work of holding up the sign which in effect says to yapa, “Check Your Law at the Door: White Laws Only Allowed Within”.

See: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUIndigLawRw/2013/6.pdf

Amongst several central desert tribes, the Walpiri I believe, the practice of incising/splitting a young mans penis is involved in initiation rites...correct please me if I'm wrong here Joe. I seem to recall a white man who was initiated into the tribe in the 1990's and later sentenced under Yapa and Kartiya law. This involved being speared in the leg, which almost resulted in his death.

For the Muslims to sustain their arguments - for doing what their religion dictates, then we should equitably consider that in this country customary law (i.e. another set of laws running in parallel with the law of the land) exists. It sets a precedent.

Hi Albie,

No, I don't support ANY cultural concessions over law, none whatever. I don't believe that young boys should be subjected to idiotic and barbaric practices, and certainly not against their will (which is usually the next step in the slippery slope). I certainly don't support child betrothal and marriage, or rape in 'marriage', as was tried on fifteen-odd years ago.

We are all different, no two of us are identical, BUT as Australians, we all have the same rights, equal rights, and the same obligations. In that sense, we are all the same. I'll let identity politicians tease out that one. Joan Wallach Scott (1996) thoroughly explains it all, especially to feminists. Yes, Eli Wallach's niece. Small world.

It's amazing how, even in very indirect ways, 'culture', cultural practices, seem to focus on, in some way, often incredibly ingenious sways, devaluing or cramping women, particularly unmarried, young women. I suppose even sub-incision could be interpreted as something that not only can't do, but, in its ceremonial function, as a substitution for pregnancy, i.e. as if to say, 'Anything women think they can do, we can do better, and women are nothing but the vessels for our sacredness.' A touch of a priesthood there, something else out of reach of women.

Maybe, in a sense, modern societies don't have 'culture', they have common rules of equality and fairness ?

If I were a woman, any time I heard someone talk about 'culture', I would be reaching for my placard.

Joe

Dear nicknamenick,

So you want to do a Trump and "grab whatever
is on offer?"

Before you do that - have you noticed how
Trump is rather robotic in his arm movements?

Perhaps he grabbed once too often?

Best rethink your urges - you could come to regret it.

Dearest Foxy,

On Nick's comment, that ' .... I feel like Trump does and just grab whatever is on offer.....', it's interesting that that attitude could be the basis for the Islamist view of women too, not just Trump's view - that women are all temptresses, and have to be covered up, otherwise men will be incited by lust at what they are 'offering'. To misogynists like Trump and Islamists, women are really all gagging for it, so (a) in Trump's view, have to be fvjudscifked; and (b) in the view of Islamists, have to be tightly controlled and confined if necessary, married off early, but always under a man's control.

Both attitudes devalue the right of women to be whatever they like, do and behave however they damn-well like. Both attitudes assume that men are the centre of the world, especially for women, who can't control themselves, therefore have to be shown how by men, one way or another. Trump or Shari'a: pretty shirt-house choices.

Meile,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank You for that.

However I am a bit concerned about where my mind's at.
I originally went and saw "Fifty Shades of Grey,"
and was intrigued by the mind games in the movie.
Then recently I went and saw, "Fifty Shades Darker,"
and simply loved the movie. I can't wait to see
what happens next and how Christian Grey's behaviour
will be explained. These films are supposed to be
"soft porn," yet I didn't look at them that way.
So what does that say about me?