Reply With Quote
it's called tolerance, except if it was based on Christianity then it would be called bigotry.
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.”
it's called tolerance, except if it was based on Christianity then it would be called bigotry.
Is it an opt in system?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4749183.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.”
dumb idea, brittania.
Who gives a then?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.
ing dumbasses. Bull Islamic law has no place in the 1st world.
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.
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 , 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.
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.
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/new...cle4749183.ece
"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.
"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?
It's true. I just stoned my secretary to death for not warming my coffee enough. When will they learn???
You're really ing clueless, you know that?
Only a ing 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 s legal. Is that what you want? Go ahead and tell me it is, boutons.
, Britain just let Greenpeace terrorists go after vandalizing businesses because they were helping prevent Global Warming.
That country is lost.
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.
Both parties have to agree to it. The wife has to make a choice.Voluntary for the husband.
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.
As long as we have liberal Justices on the Supreme Court that insist we look across the pond for legal reference, I give a .
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.
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.
I understand what you're saying Pete, but I don't see how that makes any for of arbitration bad.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
