danivon wrote:[So contrary to DF's assertion elsewhere, it did not give Islam a singular exemption of tolerance.

freeman3 wrote:I think that families should have broad discretion on how to raise their kids within certain limits. At the end of the day, society is a group of families and why should we care how other families raise their kids/conduct themselves unless they do something like female circumcision or suttee. (It doesn't have to be that bad but it has to be significant) There should be a barrier between the government and the family, only broken when the family goes beyond limits of civilized behavior. There are always laudable goals when the government intervenes in families (stopping domestic violence, taking aways kids from parents who are abusive) and many times the government needs to stop in, but there are also times in minor cases where intervention causes a lot of damage. So I am loath to tell families that they must raise their kids according to our beliefs about gender roles. I see the family as a bulwark against potential government oppression--it's not an accident that totalitarian countries tend to subvert it.

Sassenach wrote:

Yet.

I've chosen to quote this rather than your more lengthy post above it because I find it interesting. You clearly seem to feel that modern Britain has been too tolerant of the Islamic community in our midst and that we grant far too much leeway to those who have values which are in many ways antithetical to those of the host culture. That's a lot to read into a three letter word, but you've spoken about this many times in the past so I have a pretty decent handle on your views.

What I find interesting is that I agree to a large extent. The lack of assimilation amongst our Islamic minorities is a huge problem, and one that I don't believe is being helped by multiculturalism. One of the ways in which I think we should be trying to tackle this problem is by being more rigorous in our insistence that certain cultural practices that are normal in the Islamic world are not acceptable in our society, and treatment of women would be right up there near the top of my list. I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to allow Islamic schools to become cultural ghettos, reinforcing parental attitudes that are not acceptable to wider British society. Doing that is never going to encourage assimilation, quite the reverse in fact.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:[So contrary to DF's assertion elsewhere, it did not give Islam a singular exemption of tolerance.

Not sure I asserted this (precisely). However, there is a special deference to Islam. After all, the greatest sin one can commit is "Islamophobia."

freeman3 wrote: I see the family as a bulwark against potential government oppression--it's not an accident that totalitarian countries tend to subvert it.

danivon wrote:There is not "special deference" to Islam as far as I can see (and I live here). If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do.

Oh, and before you cite the existence of "sharia" courts yes, they exist, mainly to deal with divorces (often because the marriages were not registered so are not recognised by the state anyway). But the same sort of thing happens in Jewish communities, where they need a "Get" from a rabbi for a divorce or use a Beth Din to resolve disputes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm In fact, this has been happening for centuries for Jews in the UK, before it was recognised for Muslims.

But this pressure from Sharia councils and the community they serve is causing suffering – Islamic rulings are not always in the interests of women and can run counter to British law.

. . .

Leyton say they do not advise abused women to return to their husbands, but given what we had heard, we sent an undercover reporter to consult Dr Hasan with a story about an abusive husband.

The Government says domestic violence is a crime that should be reported to the police. The Islamic scholar’s reaction to her account of being hit and whether she should inform the police was to ask her if she was actually being beaten severely – to the extent of having bruises on her body. “The police, that is a very, very last resort,” he said. “If he becomes so aggressive starts hitting and punching you, of course you have to report it to the police.”

Dr Hasan advised her that telling the police would be the final blow as she would have to go to a refuge – which was a very bad option. He also referred our undercover reporter to his wife, a counsellor at Leyton. She too advised against involving the police saying the family was a better option. Both of them suggested she should ask if the violence was due to her own actions and she should strive to be a good wife in every way: cooking, cleaning and looking after her appearance.

Despite the growing demand for Sharia law in Britain, there is also increasing opposition by some groups who argue that the practice discriminates against women.

The Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation (IKWRO) is campaigning to bring an end to the practice.

''We have spoken to many women and all of them tell us the same story; Sharia law is not providing them with the justice they seek. The councils are dominated by men, who are making judgements in favour of men,'' said Diana Nammi.

Concerns such as these have led crossbench peer Baroness Cox to introduce a bill before the House of Lords, aimed at introducing regulation of Sharia organisations in the UK.

The bill has received its first reading and is expected to get a second reading later this year.

But for groups like IKWRO the bill does not go far enough.

''We think there shouldn't be any religious law practising in Britain - all Sharia bodies should be banned. That is the only way we can ensure equality of justice for all women," argues Diana Nammi.

danivon wrote:OK, so Leyton (in both articles) seem to be acting outside UK law.

That needs to be looked at, but by definition it means that it is not something our state supports. I have no problem with increased regulation of these organisations.

Did you compare with Jewish analogues to show that none of them give bad advice, and no-one us lobbying to increase regulation or ban them? Because otherwise you have not actually demonstrated anything unique to Islam.

Doctor Fate wrote:Feel free to disprove it.

bbauska wrote:Does the school that does not allow the women to drive children to school force the students to be there? Isn't that voluntary as well? Since it is voluntary (assumed until I am told otherwise), would there be standing in a court?

Does the school that does not allow the women to drive children to school force the students to be there? Isn't that voluntary as well? Since it is voluntary (assumed until I am told otherwise), would there be standing in a court?