Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts Full Power to Rule on Civil Cases

[desflood]

Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts Full Power to Rule on Civil Cases
Monday, September 15, 2008

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given 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.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through county courts or the country's High Court, a part of its Supreme Court system.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

[2centsworth]

it's called tolerance, except if it was based on Christianity then it would be called bigotry.

[MannyIsGod]

Is it an opt in system?

[Spurminator]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
Abul Taher

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given 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.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers 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.

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.

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.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

[Oh, Gee!!]

dumb idea, brittania.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

Who gives a shit then?

[baseline bum]

Fucking dumbasses. Bullshit Islamic law has no place in the 1st world.

[101A]

Who gives a shit then?

Camel's nose under the tent, and all that.

It is good to be reminded sometimes that our nation IS different from those in Europe, and not just cause we are stoopider.

[boutons_]

As long as it's truly voluntary, who cares?

It would be very different if Sharia law was imposed and binding on everybody as is English common law.

US "religious" freaks do, say, and believe all kinds of weird shit, optional, but they, eg Palin as wedge, want to impose their fringe-ass "Christian" theocracy as binding in USA. Illegal, so far.

same sex marriage is optional, oops, it's illegal.

repeating debunked lies about yourself and your poltical opponent is legal in the USA, optional to listen to.

non-stop, increasingly shocking, violence-inciting hate radio is legal, optional to listen to it.

[2centsworth]

Who gives a shit then?

Arbitration is prevelent in our society. From investing in the stock market to buying a vehicle. No arbitration agreement no dice, so people sign the agreements assuming the arbitrator will be fair. Imagine an arbitrator who bases his decision on the Koran.

Governments are giving into this nonsense because they are afraid of the terrorist.

[Biernutz]

In Sharia Courts will women and their daughters get a fair shake?These courts have been operating in England since last year and judgments are have been slanted against women.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

[boutons_]

"In Sharia Courts will women and their daughters get a fair shake"

but you're not bothered about a fair shake for US women, aka, unequal pay for women doing the same jobs as men, are you?

[2centsworth]

"In Sharia Courts will women and their daughters get a fair shake"

but you're not bothered about a fair shake for US women, aka, unequal pay for women doing the same jobs as men, are you?
So the US system is equal to sharia law? Is this even a fair comparison.

[boutons_]

"the US system is equal to sharia law"

you said that, I didn't

What I pointed out that "women not getting a fair shake" happens in Muslim culture and US culture. People who live in glass houses...

Can you even address MY point, rather than your strawman?

[Anti.Hero]

"In Sharia Courts will women and their daughters get a fair shake"

but you're not bothered about a fair shake for US women, aka, unequal pay for women doing the same jobs as men, are you?

It's true. I just stoned my secretary to death for not warming my coffee enough. When will they learn???

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

As long as it's truly voluntary, who cares?

It would be very different if Sharia law was imposed and binding on everybody as is English common law.

US "religious" freaks do, say, and believe all kinds of weird shit, optional, but they, eg Palin as wedge, want to impose their fringe-ass "Christian" theocracy as binding in USA. Illegal, so far.

same sex marriage is optional, oops, it's illegal.

repeating debunked lies about yourself and your poltical opponent is legal in the USA, optional to listen to.

non-stop, increasingly shocking, violence-inciting hate radio is legal, optional to listen to it.

You're really fucking clueless, you know that?

Only a fucking idiot like you would take a leap from sharia law in Britain to Palin supporters. Comical.

Do you even know the tenets of Sharia law? Britain's officially got problems if they are letting Muslim courts issue binding rulings in their country. The traditional Sharia views are not compatible with the modern world.

Remember all those 'honor' killings of late here in the US where a Muslim male has killed a woman in his family for not marrying in the religion, etc.?

Under Sharia, that shits legal. Is that what you want? Go ahead and tell me it is, boutons.

[Anti.Hero]

Hell, Britain just let Greenpeace terrorists go after vandalizing businesses because they were helping prevent Global Warming.

That country is lost.

[MannyIsGod]

Arbitration is prevelent in our society. From investing in the stock market to buying a vehicle. No arbitration agreement no dice, so people sign the agreements assuming the arbitrator will be fair. Imagine an arbitrator who bases his decision on the Koran.

Governments are giving into this nonsense because they are afraid of the terrorist.

What do I care what rules 2 parties agree to? Its voluntary. if 2 Muslims want to decide a dispute based upon their religous beliefs then I dno't have an issue with it. Its voluntary. They get to choose the rules they play by.

[Anti.Hero]

What do I care what rules 2 parties agree to? Its voluntary. if 2 Muslims want to decide a dispute based upon their religous beliefs then I dno't have an issue with it. Its voluntary. They get to choose the rules they play by.

Voluntary for the husband. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Voluntary for the husband. :lol

Both parties have to agree to it. The wife has to make a choice.

[MannyIsGod]

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.

[Yonivore]

Who gives a shit then?
As long as we have liberal Justices on the Supreme Court that insist we look across the pond for legal reference, I give a shit.

[2centsworth]

Both parties have to agree to it. The wife has to make a choice.

use the examples I gave about arbitration in the states. If you want a stock broker/financial planner or want to buy a car, you have to sign a "voluntary" arbitration agreement. If fact, in a lot of business arrangements both parties must agree to arbitration. You can voluntarily step away, but you will have a lot less access to standard products and services.

[Supergirl]

Ugh, this could be a disaster for Britain. Bad move. The foundation of any country is to have one unified code of ethics and laws for everyone.

[MannyIsGod]

use the examples I gave about arbitration in the states. If you want a stock broker/financial planner or want to buy a car, you have to sign a "voluntary" arbitration agreement. If fact, in a lot of business arrangements both parties must agree to arbitration. You can voluntarily step away, but you will have a lot less access to standard products and services.

I understand what you're saying Pete, but I don't see how that makes any for of arbitration bad.

[MannyIsGod]

Ugh, this could be a disaster for Britain. Bad move. The foundation of any country is to have one unified code of ethics and laws for everyone.

It is?

[2centsworth]

I understand what you're saying Pete, but I don't see how that makes any for of arbitration bad.

arbitration can be good and viable alternative to US courts. Most arbitration panels that I'm aware try to enforce the law, but are used because they are cost effective and sometimes provide better insight into a particular industry. I don't see how allowing religion to infiltrate makes any sense. Especially since "voluntary" means you can voluntarily decide not to own a car.

btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think someone can voluntarily surrender certain rights. For instance, a lot of waivers do not hold up in court.

[MannyIsGod]

arbitration can be good and viable alternative to US courts. Most arbitration panels that I'm aware try to enforce the law, but are used because they are cost effective and sometimes provide better insight into a particular industry. I don't see how allowing religion to infiltrate makes any sense. Especially since "voluntary" means you can voluntarily decide not to own a car.

btw, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think someone can voluntarily surrender certain rights. For instance, a lot of waivers do not hold up in court.

Certain rights cannot be relinquished (IE you can't commit suicide etc etc) but I'm not sure thats the case in civil matters. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say that with a certainty but I believe it to be true.

Whether religious in nature or secular the only thing that matters to me is that it is a set of rules 2 parties are agreeing too. I see no reason to deprive individuals of a choice in what rules they choose to abide by in these civil cases. If they want to raise the bar then I see no reason to tell them they can't.

The example you use is completely incorrect, btw. I believe what you meant to say was FINANCING a vehicle because as far as I know I can purchase a vehicle cash without having to agree to any form of arbitration. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone has a fundemental right to be able to finance a vehicle, do you?

[MannyIsGod]

Basically what it boils down to is should people have the right to decide for themselves what rules to play by in civil proceedings. Of course they should. Why not?

[2centsworth]

Certain rights cannot be relinquished (IE you can't commit suicide etc etc) but I'm not sure thats the case in civil matters. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say that with a certainty but I believe it to be true.

Whether religious in nature or secular the only thing that matters to me is that it is a set of rules 2 parties are agreeing too. I see no reason to deprive individuals of a choice in what rules they choose to abide by in these civil cases. If they want to raise the bar then I see no reason to tell them they can't.

The example you use is completely incorrect, btw. I believe what you meant to say was FINANCING a vehicle because as far as I know I can purchase a vehicle cash without having to agree to any form of arbitration. Furthermore, I don't believe anyone has a fundemental right to be able to finance a vehicle, do you?

no brother, an arbitration agreement is required whether you finance or not. I just bought a Jeep Patriot cash and had to sign an arbitration agreement. I could have voluntarily walked away. However, the arbitrators aren't going to stray too far from actual civil court. How about if Car dealers required Christian Arbitration would you be ok with that?

Also, what was your stance on Convenant Marriage?

[MannyIsGod]

no brother, an arbitration agreement is required whether you finance or not. I just bought a Jeep Patriot cash and had to sign an arbitration agreement. I could have voluntarily walked away. However, the arbitrators aren't going to stray too far from actual civil court. How about if Car dealers required Christian Arbitration would you be ok with that?

Also, what was your stance on Convenant Marriage?

I wasn't aware that even purchasing a vehicle cash required signing an arbitration agreement. What would they mediate?

I honestly wouldn't care if they had forms of Christian arbitration. I wouldn't enter into any agreement I didn't feel comfortable with personally.

What is covenant marriage?

[DarkReign]

I wasn't aware that even purchasing a vehicle cash required signing an arbitration agreement. What would they mediate?

I honestly wouldn't care if they had forms of Christian arbitration. I wouldn't enter into any agreement I didn't feel comfortable with personally.

What is covenant marriage?

Google is your friend. (http://www.google.com/search?q=covenant+marriage&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1)

[whottt]

but you're not bothered about a fair shake for US women, aka, unequal pay for women doing the same jobs as men, are you?



http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/



On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.[b]
The average pay for the 33 [b]men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91.[b] (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, [b]the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.






Go fuck yourself boutons....

[Oh, Gee!!]

For instance, a lot of waivers do not hold up in court.

courts would come to a grinding halt (esp. criminal courts) if rights couldn't be voluntarily waived.

[2centsworth]

courts would come to a grinding halt (esp. criminal courts) if rights couldn't be voluntarily waived.

that's why I put some rights, but you're right about criminal courts. I've been told that injury waivers are suspect.

[boutons_]

"The foundation of any country is to have one unified code of ethics and laws for everyone."

Your naivete is amusing. One of the most pervasive American, childish myths is that everyone is equal before the law, that no one is above the law. What "justice" you get in court is a function of lawyering, legal technicalities, and how much you can spend.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I've been told that injury waivers are suspect.

perhaps, but if someone signs a waiver in exchange for a cash settlement, most courts will enforce the waiver against the injured party even though they received less than fair market value or less than they would have through a lawsuit. The lesson is to be careful what you agree to.

On the topic of the thread, I think this is a bad idea for Brittain because I can forsee the probability that the British court system may have to abide by arbitartion agreements that would otherwise be illegal if done by non-Sharia arbitration courts.

[101A]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/30/does-obama-pay-women-less-than-men/



On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.[b]
The average pay for the 33 [b]men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91.[b] (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, [B]the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.






Go fuck yourself boutons....


Damn, that ad writes itself. I get the feeling that the McCain campaign is holding back a series of surprises to the bitter end.

Obama at the Acropolis shouting "Equal Pay for Equal Work", followed by these stats....

[101A]

I wasn't aware that even purchasing a vehicle cash required signing an arbitration agreement. What would they mediate?

I honestly wouldn't care if they had forms of Christian arbitration. I wouldn't enter into any agreement I didn't feel comfortable with personally.

What is covenant marriage?

It's a stereotypical response on by part, but I question whether women, especially, in Muslim households get to make such choices themselves. The courts should protect them at all costs.

[Wild Cobra]

So, do you lefties here agree with this?

It is now legal for a man to kill his wife and daughters.

[2centsworth]

perhaps, but if someone signs a waiver in exchange for a cash settlement, most courts will enforce the waiver against the injured party even though they received less than fair market value or less than they would have through a lawsuit. The lesson is to be careful what you agree to.

On the topic of the thread, I think this is a bad idea for Brittain because I can forsee the probability that the British court system may have to abide by arbitartion agreements that would otherwise be illegal if done by non-Sharia arbitration courts.

I'm gonna mark down this day. You and I agree on something.:downspin:

[Oh, Gee!!]

You and I agree on something

yeah, but for different reasons I'm sure.

[Spurminator]

Out of curiosity, do we have anything similar in American Amish communities or other places like that?

[2centsworth]

yeah, but for different reasons I'm sure.

No, but I'm not going to argue with you today.:toast

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, but I'm not going to argue with you today.:toast

:lol fair enough

[MannyIsGod]

So, do you lefties here agree with this?

It is now legal for a man to kill his wife and daughters.

:lmao

Can you ever be intellectually honest? Ever? Just once?

[MannyIsGod]

On the subject of covenant marriage - I feel its silly as hell. However, I respect a couples right to enter into it. For the record I also feel Sharia court is ridiculous but within certain limits I believe it should be allowed. Obviously - lest we make Wild Cobra's stupid statment correct - there has to be limits.

I agree that there is reason to be suspect on whether or not these women are able to make a clear choice, but I do believe that societal pressures are not to be legislated against. Its not the governments job to protect people against moral pressures or any other pressures their society enacts on them.

its a tough line to walk, but I do believe that people should be able to choose the set f rules they play by in civil matters. Obviously there are quirks to be worked out and many times we won't agree or understand what these people decide to do but thats not the the point. The point is that they get to decide.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Can you ever be intellectually honest? Ever? Just once?

What do you mean? Honor killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing) are a part of their 'civil' justice!