Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 1:33pm

So how is this any different than Catholics being refused the right to remarry if they have not obtained an annulment by the Catholic church?

Comment by Sassan K. on August 4, 2011 at 2:31pm

That does not happen in the United States under the court of law. They are not legally binding.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 2:43pm

Neither is Sharia.  If religious people choose to seek permission from their religion for their divorce rather than just following the legal procedure then it really isn't any different for Sharia than Catholic doctrine.  Australia does not require that Muslims obtain divorce from their Imam.

Comment by Stephen Walski on August 4, 2011 at 2:48pm

Its not condoned or above Australian law either. Its simply an agreement in that community.

 

We have the same behavior in the US from

 

Jewish

Muslim

Catholic

Native American Tribes

German Baptists

Amish

 

Its no different then arbitration. The news over the past year however has become obsessed with saying Sharia Law over and over.

Comment by Stephen Walski on August 4, 2011 at 2:53pm

And btw ask any religious person whos law comes first God or mans and they will all say Gods.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 2:59pm

That the Muslims are trying to maintain their culture in Australia is something that poses potential problems.  The Australian people, however, will have none of that poppycock when those problems arise.  All it takes is one Muslim party in a Sharia case to invoke the Australian legal system to illustrate which law is the one that will be followed in Australia.

Comment by Sassan K. on August 4, 2011 at 4:08pm

In the U.K., it is legally binding in their state sanctioned Shariah courts. And in Australia - it is shocking as well. These poor women do not know their legal rights and are stuck to the crap that is Shariah. Under any circumstance in any western country - the laws that are followed need to be strictly state law - not religious law.

Comment by Sassan K. on August 4, 2011 at 4:08pm

Actually Stephen - most Christians won't say that. Why always try to give excuses for Islamists? It's mind boggling.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on August 4, 2011 at 4:16pm

Third party arbitration is only legally binding in the commonwealth when both parties have agreed in a Queen's Bench Court to accept the ruling of the arbitrator.  Than in no way replaces the QBC with Sharia anywhere in the commonwealth.  If you have evidence to the contrary then please provide it, although I suspect that anytime soon you'll just revert to posting between 3 and 8 videos each of 20 minutes length and refuse to participate in meaningful exchange.

Comment by Sassan K. on August 4, 2011 at 4:38pm

Like you said - it is legally binding. Irregardless if it is agreed upon before - women in Islamic cultures often feel powerless and unable to voice their opinions or even know their rights. It is a violation of western values and should NEVER be the case. In fact - in the U.K. where female genital mutilation is a crime with punishment up to 14-years in prison - not a single father or guardian has been prosecuted under the law so to not "offend" the local Muslim population. Absolutely disgusting and abhorrent.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 8 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service