| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Butler-Sloss urges courts to recognise sharia divorces |
| 2008-12-27 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #5 I agree that if someone wants to be bound by their religions demands, that is their choice, as long as it is within the civil law. However, it is not the job of the civil authorities to accommodate those who want the advantages of both systems. If accommodation happens, it must be at the expense of religious law. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-12-27 10:39 |
| #4 Civil should be strictly separated from religious. If a woman is unable to attain a civil divorce without a sharia divorce then she is at the mercy of the sharia courts, even if she doesn't want to get married again. Further, keep in mind that requiring the sharia divorce prior to the civil gives priority to sharia rules as to property distribution and custody. If the consequence is that a woman then cannot get married in the muslim faith that's her choice, but at least she had the choice. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-12-27 10:28 |
| #3 Eric, newc is correct. Any accomodation of Shariah in the common law is one more step to doom. Your take is correct from a legalistic standpoint but that still makes accomodation of the Muzzies. What happens if the Female wants out? If she has to wait till the Koranimals let her she cedes half her property off the top. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-12-27 09:55 |
| #2 Not quite, Newc. The story is saying that the courts should not grant civil divorces to Moslem couples until after they receive a religious divorce. According to Sharia "law", a man may be married to more than one woman at a time, so there's no bar to his getting a civil divorce from his first wife and marrying a second. The first wife would be unable to marry in Moslem society afterwards. The intent here is to bar the faithless husband from marrying again, which we should all approve. |
| Posted by: Eric Jablow 2008-12-27 07:42 |
| #1 G'bye Britain. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-12-27 07:27 |