3 ms·

A Talib courtroom. This is not representative of sharia courtrooms generally. This akin to looking at a drumhead courts marshal and describing it as a "Christ

A Talib courtroom. This is not representative of sharia courtrooms generally. This akin to looking at a drumhead courts marshal and describing it as a "Christian" commonlaw court. The common law could learn a lot from Sharia law, just not the punishments. (Although even those harsh punishments are rather similar to common law punishments of not long ago.) Want a trial in your own language? Want a codified standard of proof for specific crimes? You won't get those under the common law. You would in Sharia.

boxed 3y ago
> Want a trial in your own language? Want a codified standard of proof for specific crimes? You won't get those under the common law. You would in Sharia. Oh, so if I show up in a random Sharia court in Saudi Arabia they will switch the entire court proceeding to Swedish will they?
- sandworm101 3y ago
  You could make that argument and many experts would say that you have a right to a translator. That isn't a thing under the common law. Many countries do provide translators, but that isn't a right across the board and for centuries people were executed in England without access to translators.
  - boxed 3y ago
    Your whataboutism skills are lacking.
notadancer 3y ago
>The common law could learn a lot from Sharia law If you're curious to compare and live in the UK, just pop into your local Sharia court. Between 30-85 such courts are estimated to exist in Britain. They generally call themselves "councils" rather than courts but sometimes the mask slips: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-law-in-england-and-wales-independent-review https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-l... >Common misconceptions around sharia councils often perpetuate owing to the use of incorrect terms such as referring to them as ‘courts’ rather than councils or to their members as ‘judges’. These terms are used both in media articles but also on occasion by the sharia councils themselves.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  Those aren't full courts. There are similar Jewish/rabbinical bodies in the US that also deal with family and religious issues. Sit in on a full sharia court and you will see procedures that techniques that answer questions that the common law has long struggled with. For example, not every witness in a sharia court must take an oath: "Article 107: A person requesting the oath of his adversary must precisely specify the events concerning which he wishes said adversary take an oath. The court shall prepare the formula of the oath as prescribed by the Shari'ah." https://www.saudiembassy.net/law-procedure-shariah-courts https://www.saudiembassy.net/law-procedure-shariah-courts
zogrodea 3y ago
This is highlighted by Rawls' "highly idealized" (according to him) concept of a wel-ordered society[0], which sounds (according to Professor Wael Hallaq of Columbia University) like a distinguished Muslim jurist describing the reality of his own legal culture". [0] "To say that a society is well-ordered conveys three things: first (and implied by the idea of publicly recognized conception of justice), it is a society in which everyone accepts, and knows that everyone else accepts, the very same principles of justice; and second (implied by the idea of the effective regulation of such conception), its basic structure— that is, its main political and social institutions and how they fit together as one system of cooperation—is publicly known, or with good reason believed, to satisfy these principles. And third, its citizens have a normally effective sense of justice and so they generally comply with society’s basic institutions, which they regard as just. In such a society the publicly recognized conception of justice establishes a shared point of view from which citizens’ claim on society can be adjudicated. "This is a highly idealized concept. Yet any conception of justice that cannot well order a constitutional democracy is inadequate as a democratic conception."

boxed 3y ago

> Want a trial in your own language? Want a codified standard of proof for specific crimes? You won't get those under the common law. You would in Sharia. Oh, so if I show up in a random Sharia court in Saudi Arabia they will switch the entire court proceeding to Swedish will they?

sandworm101 3y ago
You could make that argument and many experts would say that you have a right to a translator. That isn't a thing under the common law. Many countries do provide translators, but that isn't a right across the board and for centuries people were executed in England without access to translators.
- boxed 3y ago
  Your whataboutism skills are lacking.

notadancer 3y ago

>The common law could learn a lot from Sharia law If you're curious to compare and live in the UK, just pop into your local Sharia court. Between 30-85 such courts are estimated to exist in Britain. They generally call themselves "councils" rather than courts but sometimes the mask slips: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-law-in-england-and-wales-independent-review https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/applying-sharia-l... >Common misconceptions around sharia councils often perpetuate owing to the use of incorrect terms such as referring to them as ‘courts’ rather than councils or to their members as ‘judges’. These terms are used both in media articles but also on occasion by the sharia councils themselves.

sandworm101 3y ago
Those aren't full courts. There are similar Jewish/rabbinical bodies in the US that also deal with family and religious issues. Sit in on a full sharia court and you will see procedures that techniques that answer questions that the common law has long struggled with. For example, not every witness in a sharia court must take an oath: "Article 107: A person requesting the oath of his adversary must precisely specify the events concerning which he wishes said adversary take an oath. The court shall prepare the formula of the oath as prescribed by the Shari'ah." https://www.saudiembassy.net/law-procedure-shariah-courts https://www.saudiembassy.net/law-procedure-shariah-courts

zogrodea 3y ago

This is highlighted by Rawls' "highly idealized" (according to him) concept of a wel-ordered society[0], which sounds (according to Professor Wael Hallaq of Columbia University) like a distinguished Muslim jurist describing the reality of his own legal culture". [0] "To say that a society is well-ordered conveys three things: first (and implied by the idea of publicly recognized conception of justice), it is a society in which everyone accepts, and knows that everyone else accepts, the very same principles of justice; and second (implied by the idea of the effective regulation of such conception), its basic structure— that is, its main political and social institutions and how they fit together as one system of cooperation—is publicly known, or with good reason believed, to satisfy these principles. And third, its citizens have a normally effective sense of justice and so they generally comply with society’s basic institutions, which they regard as just. In such a society the publicly recognized conception of justice establishes a shared point of view from which citizens’ claim on society can be adjudicated. "This is a highly idealized concept. Yet any conception of justice that cannot well order a constitutional democracy is inadequate as a democratic conception."