|
Sharia Law Becomes Official in Britain
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Jeez, I would have thought you lefties would have been jumping up and down for joy and have 10 posts about this one...
It's been pretty silent on the gay / women's equal rights groups on this one too...what gives?
 |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Jeez, I would have thought you lefties would have been jumping up and down for joy and have 10 posts about this one...
It's been pretty silent on the gay / women's equal rights groups on this one too...what gives?
|
That's it? A F*cking picture? If that's true then Britian is no longer a democracy now is it? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| yeah, what are you talking about firestarter? :conf: |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| Fire3starter is another version of latinlover just posting useless threads like this trying to spread bull. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
What Firestarter forgot to add, or more specifically, the website he got this info from forgot to add, is the following:
| quote: | Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case |
Not quite as sinister as he'd like now, is it? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
What Firestarter forgot to add, or more specifically, the website he got this info from forgot to add, is the following:
Not quite as sinister as he'd like now, is it? |
So its kind of like "People's Court" ;)
| quote: | Islamic sharia law courts in Britain are exploiting a little-known legal clause to make their verdicts officially binding under UK law in cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence.
A new network of courts in five major cities is hearing cases where Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.
Officials behind the new system claim to have dealt with more than 100 cases since last summer, including six involving domestic violence which is a criminal rather than civil offence, and said they hoped to take over growing numbers of 'smaller' criminal cases in future.
Women are likely to suffer more if Sharia Law, which does treat women equally to men, becomes an accepted legal avenue
Women are likely to suffer more if sharia law, which does treat women equally to men, becomes an accepted legal avenue
The revelations sparked uproar yesterday, with warnings that the fundamental principle of equal treatment for all - the bedrock of British justice - was being gravely undermined.
Critics fear Britain's Islamic hard-liners will now try to make sharia law the dominant legal system in Muslim neighbourhoods, and warn that women often receive less favourable treatment at the hands of the traditional Islamic courts.
The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy when suggesting recognition of Sharia Law seemed 'unavoidable'
The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy when suggesting recognition of sharia seemed 'unavoidable'
The issue erupted into a major controversy earlier this year after the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams claimed publicly that formal recognition of sharia law 'seemed unavoidable', and Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips gave his backing to the use of Islamic courts to deal with family, marital and financial disputes.
Sharia courts have operated unofficially for years among Britain's Muslim communities but until now their rulings could not be enforced, relying instead on parties agreeing voluntarily.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal panels, set up by lawyer Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, are now operating in London, Bradford, Manchester, Birmingham and Nuneaton, with more planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Mr Siddiqi said: 'We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and High Courts.
'The Act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.'
Cases handled by the courts so far include Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours, he said.
But as well as civil disputes they have also handled six cases of domestic violence.
In all six cases, he said, sharia judges ordered husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders, but issued no further punishment.
All the women subsequently withdrew their complaints to the police, who halted investigations.
Mr Siddiqi claimed the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
But critics fear Muslim women victims will be pressured into accepting a sharia court settlement, and husbands will escape with lighter punishments than in a mainstream criminal court.
In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter - in keeping with sharia law.
In a mainstream court all siblings would have been treated equally.
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, condemned the latest development as 'appalling.'
'I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.'
Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'These tribunals have no place in passing binding decisions in divorce or criminal justice hearings.
'Far from handling more criminal cases. They should be handling none at all.
'British law is absolute and must remain so.'
More...
* Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge
* Sharia car insurance: For the first time, Muslims can buy policies in line with Islamic law
Muslim groups pointed out that Jewish Beth Din courts have handled civil legal cases for more than 100 years in Britain on a similar basis, and now operate under the 1996 Arbitration Act.
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'We support these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.'
The Ministry of Justice said: 'Sharia law is not part of the law of England and Wales, and the Government has no intention of making any change that would conflict with British laws and values.
'In all arbitrations, decisions will be enforceable by the English courts if the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act are satisfied. If any decisions by these Tribunals were illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, they would not be enforceable.'
A recent survey by the Centre for Social Cohesion found 40 per cent of Britain's Muslim students want the introduction of sharia law in the UK, while 33 per cent want a worldwide Islamic sharia-based government.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...ly-binding.html
|
from another
| quote: | LONDON: Five Sharia courts have been set up in different cities of Britain with powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence, according to a report.
The Islamic courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh, the report said.
Rulings issued by the five sharia courts are enforceable with full power of the judicial system through the country courts or high court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddique, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...how/3483154.cms
|
So if one party say nay, then its all piss in the wind....thats what I am getting from the articles |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
So its kind of like "People's Court" ;)
from another
So if one party say nay, then its all piss in the wind....thats what I am getting from the articles |
Seriously, if you want to look at the subject of Islam in the UK then do not go anywhere near the Daily Mail! Put it this way: The Daily Mail supported Hitler (link), that's your first clue! (Also the "Times of India" article is actually from the British Times, where Firestarter's "Moonbatty" website first quoted this story, which is another right wing newspaper but not as racist as the Daily Mail)
But yes, unless both parties agree to empower an arbitration panel then it has no authority to enforce any judgements.
One thing I did see in the Daily Hate Mail article that made me laugh was this: "Sharia car insurance: For the first time, Muslims can buy policies in line with Islamic law"
It's like the Islamic mortgages HSBC offer to Muslims so they don't break religious laws about paying interest...
Here's news to you: YOU CAN'T TRICK GOD! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i support individual contracts between consenting adults most of the time, but no prizes for guessing where i am on this issue. and what kind of appointment and oversight conditions do these courts have? we dont let say, people under a certain age enter into a contract to perform some kinds of work. i see no reason why we shouldn't likewise prevent people from engaging in religious contract law, ever.
even if both consenting parties are satisfied with results, who is to say that the result is congruous with british legal goals? if im not a muslim, can i have a say in the make up of the court? if not, why not?
seriously, westminster and its associated institutions are a shining beacon of awesomeness on this planet. people who want to replace that with unsubstantiated superstition as a basis for arbitration. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Obviously their rulings will have to be compatible with UK law
For example, if a woman agrees (!) that her husband can honour kill her because she had an affair, the man would still be prosecuted for murder even tho that "contract" was agreed in a court of arbitration
I can't really think of any rulings that these arbitration courts could pass that would be harmful to society? They are not going to be any different to any other court of arbitration so I'm not sure what the problem is. It's also worth pointing out that the British Jewish community has operated similar courts for years now and nobody got scared of them. The fact of the matter is, these arbitration courts are unlikely to change anything - they only apply to you if you want them to apply to you (and if you're already into Sharia law then you're most likely already living by its standards so nothing changes) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Obviously their rulings will have to be compatible with UK law |
define "compatible"? the way i read it its as long as it doesn't break existing laws. that a court doesn't break any laws does not mean that it is a fair court.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I can't really think of any rulings that these arbitration courts could pass that would be harmful to society? |
are you saying that rulings of a religious court exist in a vacuum and do not affect the society at large?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
They are not going to be any different to any other court of arbitration so I'm not sure what the problem is. |
if they are not going to be any different, then why are they necessary?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
It's also worth pointing out that the British Jewish community has operated similar courts for years now and nobody got scared of them. |
who said anything about being scared? my opinion applies equally to the jewish courts. maybe i want a say in how these courts work. can i?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
they only apply to you if you want them to apply to you |
because sharia law has such an awesome track record of giving people choice.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
(and if you're already into Sharia law then you're most likely already living by its standards so nothing changes) |
how is that ok?
...its forged alliance time, ill be back later! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
define "compatible"? the way i read it its as long as it doesn't break existing laws. that a court doesn't break any laws does not mean that it is a fair court. |
Well two teenagers just got two years for murdering somebody near where I'm from, how is that "fair"? No court ruling will ever be considered "fair" by everyone, even those that you hold up in such high esteem.
| quote: | | are you saying that rulings of a religious court exist in a vacuum and do not affect the society at large? |
That depends on the nature of the court. I've not been forced to have the end of my nob chopped off or banned from eating bacon sarnies cos of rulings in the Jewish arbitration courts so I fail to see how rulings in these Islamic arbitration courts will effect me or anyone who does not recognise their legitimacy. If they were to rule on national law, like they do in Saudi Arabia, then obviously that has implications for society
| quote: | | if they are not going to be any different, then why are they necessary? |
They aren't necessary to people like you or me, but why do people find it "necessary" to get married in a church and not a registry office?
| quote: | | who said anything about being scared? my opinion applies equally to the jewish courts. maybe i want a say in how these courts work. can i? |
You are having your say, and I'm having my say back, what's the problem?
| quote: | | because sharia law has such an awesome track record of giving people choice. |
Some people in the UK choose (or do not choose) to live by Sharia law, that fact will not change because of these arbitration courts, so I don't think we will see any different. A battered wife under an oppressive husband will remain so whether these courts exist or not, like I said, I don't expect anything to change
I don't follow you |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| PKC, you're looking at this wrong. This is not really a court run on religious law... it's independent arbitration. Just like in collective bargining or seeking settlement of a tort action... the two sides agree on an arbitrator and to be bound by their decision, they present their case, the arbitrator decides, and the parties comply with the arbitrator's decision. Who cares what the arbitrator bases their decision on as long as both parties agree to the rules. This is for private disputes, not public policy, and it's not a body that has the authority to make/change/or otherwise overrule law. |
|
|
|
|
