Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (http://www.matribunal.com/) (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.
Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”
In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”


Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6721158.ece)

:ooh::8

Thin edge of the wedge people.:eek:

Yes, no cumbersome legal arguments to get in the way of railroading a victim.

Looking forward to any legitamate, open minded debate.

My previous post was snuffed by the hierarchy, so here goes.

The law of the land is created by the elected executive of government with the will of the people. To have two or more systems running in parallel is close to the definition of anarchy, especially one written and promulgated by the followers of a creed and tradition that is openly hostile to the country they are resident in.

Dear Sitigeltfel, I do not accept that followers of Islam are "openly hostile to the country they are resident in". Some are, and in a major way too, but only some of them, but so are some of any "category" within our society that is large enough to contain those who hate others for being different. Who blew up the Oklahoma bomb? Who shot JFK (ok maybe a bad example, but there goes). What religion were the terrorists who planted bombs all over the UK until a few years ago?

Are you perhaps being a tincy-wincy bit hostile yourself?

Now, if Fred Blogs and Bill Jones want to come before me as Final Judge and Arbiter of some dispute between them, I'm sure paperwork can be drawn up that makes it binding (but I suspect I might have to be a lawyer to charge for it - free beer comes to mind but cheaper to pay real dosh?). There is simply no problem provided both parties come before their "court" of their own free will.

What's the problem? It's not a court of law, backed up by the police. It's a form of arbitration, voluntarily agreed to be binding by both parties. Either of them could have gone to law if they wanted, but this was quicker and cheaper.

Looking forward to any legitamate, open minded debate.
Open-minded? We're talking Islam here. In that "system" Muslims are explicitly favoured over non-Muslims, and the word of a woman is worth half that of a man's. We are not talking about a system that is "different but just as good" w.r.t. Western secular law.

Yes, I know they will be limiting the scope of Shariah law to civil proceedings, similar to what happened in Canada, so thieves won't be losing their hands. Still: to have Shariah-ruled enclaves within a country is to subvert the very idea of what a country is. If there is no continuity of law across a country, is it still a country, in the formal, legal sense?

In some parts of NZ, bits of south Auckland for example, and in the East Cape and Far North of the North Island, people have been known to turn to one or other of the two largest predominantly Maori gangs for justice and restitution.

I hear tell that not so long ago, in the Transvaal, it was common for folk in need of assistance to call on the AWB ahead of the Police.

I guess people will generally gravitate towards whatever system of enforcement is demonstrably quicker, more effective, and more accessible than anything else on offer.

People don't seek out alternative medicine when there is a ready cure available from the doctor.

Just a thought.

Well for a start, Sharia law is basically the interpreted law from the Koran as a guide.

Were we to apply the "interpreted" law of the Bible, there would be a hell of a hue and cry, because suddenly it is OK to stone those that are guilty.

In Oz we have had some pressure for Aboriginal customary law to be applied to Aboriginals.
Fortunately, this has been largely rejected as many of the punishments are both barbaric and innapropriate.

In a secular society there is NO justification to turn our clocks back and apply the prejudices of the loonies who thought that God dispensed all justice.

What's the problem? It's not a court of law, backed up by the police. It's a form of arbitration, voluntarily agreed to be binding by both parties. Either of them could have gone to law if they wanted, but this was quicker and cheaper.

Indeed. And a jewish equivalent (Beth Din?) has operated in the UK for ages without anyone getting too worked up about it. My only reservation would be whether a system of Sharia courts would be sufficiently 'mature' to operate in a fair and even handed manner in this country.

And Christian Bishops get an automatic seat in the House of Lords where they can vote on real laws that affect the lot of us. Laws which the police will be sent in to enforce.

To endorse Sallyann's comment; it's just another form of arbitration.

Commercial contracts almost always provide for arbitration under a stated set of rules by an arbitrator appointed by a third party, such as a professional society.

Anything to avoid lawyers, who will invariably do all possible to turn a minor disagreement into a Hundred Years War.

Two parties could appoint the Hell's Angels to arbitrate between them, if they mutually agreed to do so.

It's not the Crusades in reverse. You can take down the barricades.

to have Shariah-ruled enclaves within a country is to subvert the very idea of what a country is.

It's not Sharia ruling an 'enclave' (connoting a geographic application) - it's a group of people (who may live scattered around the place) voluntarily submitting to a certain forum for arbitration of their disputes.

It is no different to a club or sport which has its own rules and a tribunal which will rule on a perceived breach of those rules. If the rule runs counter to a law of the land, then the law prevails; same with the application of Sharia in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

Where people try to place Sharia above the law of the land, then that is a problem. But if our car-company friend in the original article felt that he could get a suitable remedy before a particular forum, then good luck to him.

It's a shame that Sharia law has all the negative connections of executions, stonings etc, when the version that is used in the UK is as Capot and Sallyann have stated just another form of arbitration, and no different to the Jewish Beth Din as far as I can see.

If there was a resolution that went against UK law the UK courts would overrule it, no question - but some people here do seem to let the red mist drive their thought processes!

A couple of things spring to mind.......
1 - 'Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes'. All it said in the article was that disputes which involved both a muslim and a non muslim have been resolved. Could that be that the non muslim party (in the case cited), on seeing a quicker and less expensive opportunity to solve the problem, decided to go to a Sharia court because his business partner was muslim? Did the non-muslim business partner think that his muslim business partner would be more likely to follow a Sharia ruling than a law court ruling and that swayed his decision to agree to a Sharia hearing?

2 - Where would two non-muslims in a dispute stand if they wanted to go to a Sharia court rather than a bog standard law court?

3 - 'The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.' Interesting, are they legally binding in a British court of law, or just within the Sharia system? Has it been tested?

An answer to point 2 from Flying Lawyer if he feels able to comment would be interesting. As a lay person I would suspect that it would effectively be contract law - 2 people signing a contract that arbitration is binding. The outcome of the arbitration would presumably need to be lawful for UK courts to uphold it.

are they legally binding in a British court of lawAlmost always as the Arbitration Act 1996 says they are. Of course the parties need to agree in advance that the decision is binding, the tribunal wouldn't have to have behaved crazily, and the public interest must be met. So no stoning people to death, but saying somebody owes another person one hundred quid is fine. As it should be.

Where would two non-muslims in a dispute stand if they wanted to go to a Sharia court rather than a bog standard law court?

If the loser did not like the verdict, he or she could always revert to the law of the land and try their luck there. I doubt a court would be swayed by the Sharia verdict, but you never know.

I would like to remind people that Jewish, Sikh, Hindu courts have been running in this country for a while now so please lets put this into perspective. The law of the land takes priority and that has always been the case.

My Jewish neighbour has just been to a Jewish court based in London for a personal matter, when asked why not a court run by the law of the land he stated that this was a Jewish matter best settled by a court understanding his religious needs with regards to this matter.

:)

Personally I am against such courts having any legal basis in the UK whatsoever.

it's fine to talk about both parties voluntarily agreeing to their jurisdiction, just do some research into the fate of the women and girls who have to go to such courts over matters such as divorce who, through family and religious pressure have little option, and then get effectively stripped of their universal, let alone British, rights.

And the first such cases I ever became aware of that made see a red rag were those Jewish ones under the Beth Din, not under Sharia.

Jewish Divorce and the Gett: (http://www.thejewishdivorce.com/Quick_Get_Info_.html)

....What if he won't give the Gett? : Oh boy, are you in deep trouble.....

The law of the land is created by the elected executive of government with the will of the people.Which Law are we talking about?
1. The law of the land may be that which is accepted by the people as being the law. English Common Law that is, the true will of the people exercised by reference to legal precedent.
2. That which emerges from Parliament; Statute Law. The means of keeping us meekly in order, paying our taxes and crawling past the speed cameras lest we get points on our licenses.
3. That which falls upon us from Brussels, unwanted and unpopular as the outporings of an elephants backside, is mostly Administrative Law, written unbidden by unelected bureaucrats; Commissioners and such, who think they know what is good for us. The right thing, so to speak.
4. Arbitration. That which is accepted by all concerned parties.

It seems to me that the use of Sharia Courts falls under the latter and is often chosen because it is a faster and far cheaper way to resolve disputes.

Thin edge of the wedge people.


Yeah, next thing you know they'll be converting churches into mosques, banning Christmas in Yorkshire and...actually I can't think of any other clichés to show through use of sarcasm how daft that post is.

What do you think 'they' are trying to eventually achieve, sand dune? :}


Also, sitigeltfel, most Muslims in the UK are perfectly happy to be here and to abide by UK law.


According to the BBC there may be as many as 2.4 million Muslims living in the UK.

The loss of a single life by terror is horrid, but you'd assume that there would be a lot more of it if even a small fraction of those 2.4 million were hostile to the UK.

You'd have young men with placards turning up at every march through cities by soldiers.



The fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are perfectly happy to get on with the lives.

People don't seek out alternative medicine when there is a ready cure available from the doctor. BlueWolf

I'm in agreement with BlueWolf. If the Civil Law wasn't broken, people would not feel the need to go elsewhere. All these alternative courts may be a better answer for many people, but the point is that they shouldn't be. The old problem of Law being inaccessible to too many people is still with us, and needs addressing.

TT

Also, sitigeltfel, most Muslims in the UK are perfectly happy to be here and to abide by UK law.

As are most of all parts of UK society. It's the ones who are not that bother me, regardless of colour, creed, class, whatever.

Curious Pax An answer to point 2 from Flying Lawyer if he feels able to comment would be interesting I'm not allowed to comment but a practising lawyer will probably see your question and answer it. He/she will probably point out that the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (http://www.matribunal.com) is (as its website makes very clear) subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 and then refer specifically to sections 66-71 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_4#pt1-pb11-l1g66) of that Act which deal with appeal procedures.

SallyaAnn1234 What's the problem? It's not a court of law, backed up by the police. It's a form of arbitration, voluntarily agreed to be binding by both parties. Either of them could have gone to law if they wanted, but this was quicker and cheaper. Precisely.

bnt Open-minded? We're talking Islam here. In that "system" Muslims are explicitly favoured over non-Muslims Perhaps you misread the first post? :confused:
The MAT found in favour of the non-Muslim and awarded him £48,000.


Reading some of the comments in this thread makes me think that if I wanted a dispute decided fairly and had to choose between having it heard by a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal or (for example) by ORAC or sitigeltfel then I have no doubt whatsoever which I'd choose.


.

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be converting churches into mosques,

Like this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Aya_sofya.jpg

Hagia Sophia ; Arabic آيا صوفيا, (Turkish: Ayasofya, from the Greek: Ἁγία Σοφία, "Holy Wisdom"; Latin: Sancta Sophia or Sancta Sapientia) is a former patriarchal basilica, later a mosque.

Perhaps if they changed the name to summat like Bloggs Courts,anything that hints of that particular philosophy will not go down well in this country now.
:)

Like this :confused:

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt88/quant_2009/800px-Mezquita_de_Crdoba_con_nieve_.jpg

The Mezquita (Spanish for "mosque") of Córdoba or Cordova is a Roman Catholic cathedral originally built as a mosque in the Andalusian city of Córdoba, Spain.

woops not it isn't sorry, i wonder how many masjids will turn into churches once the crusade in Iraq & Afganistan is over :confused:

Clearly the law of the land takes precedence.
Isn't permitting in-house mediation just like accepting the judgement of any other non legally binding tribunal in a civil matter?
The complainants must be aware that their right to civil action under national law is always available.

Reading some of the comments in this thread makes me think that if I wanted a dispute decided fairly and had to choose between having it heard by a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal or (for example) by ORAC or sitigeltfel then I have no doubt whatsoever which I'd choose. So says the white Christian male.....

And these Sharia decided outcomes are enforceable.....How? and.......
Where?

Entered into the Public record without expectation of satisfaction?

Will there be do-overs, until the correct outcome is laid??

Will there be "Honest Injun" ?? Jinx, no backs??

These decisions are contracts, and not enforceable, but by British Law.

An agreement without enforcement is a wish.

It seems to be another round of post before reading the thread going around today. I know as I suffered from it earlier on another thread.

An anonymous poster, who shall remain so to protect his innocence, virtue, independence and all that is British, who however is an informative source on matters such as these had suggested that if a suitably legally qualified person were to write a legal opinion on said matter in the English Legal Jurisdiction:

He/she will probably point out that the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (http://www.matribunal.com) is (as its website makes very clear) subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 and then refer specifically to sections 66-71 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_4#pt1-pb11-l1g67) of that Act which deal with appeal procedures.
Which if is to be believe (and I personally believe it to be so, for what that's worth), it is a can be an effective and legally binding form of Arbitration, like any other legal form of binding arbitration, provided a) both parties agree to it and b) it is legal as per and upon conditions of the legal references above.


Reading some of the comments in this thread makes me think that if I wanted a dispute decided fairly and had to choose between having it heard by a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal or (for example) by ORAC or sitigeltfel then I have no doubt whatsoever which I'd choose.
I'm going out on a limb here, and I don't speak on behalf of said anonymous poster, though I would hazard a guess the said anonymous WCM(?) was suggesting the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK would be his preferred choice for a fair trial rather than the Kangaroo court presided over by either the Right Honorable Judges ORAC or sitigeltfel.

The above all being said, I did not see anyone forcing anyone to use this panel of arbitration, which ended up ruling in favor of the plantiff who was not of Muslim faith.

IMNSHO a successful PR result for Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, and quite possibly Islam itself.

Why the need to knock it - when we have so much else to knock is supprising.

I'm going out on a limb here, and I don't speak on behalf of said anonymous poster, though I would hazard a guess the said anonymous WCM(?) was suggesting the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK would be his preferred choice for a fair trial rather than the Kangaroo court presided over by either the Right Honorable Judges ORAC or sitigeltfel.

He was, in fact, setting up an Aunt Sally, as the choice would not be between the Sharia tribunal and I, but between the Sharia tribunal and a British court.

It did, however, allow him the opportunity to indirectly insult both my values and my integrity. Which coming from a lawyer, who knew exactly what he was implying, I think reflects more on he than me. I am sure he gets a great laugh in court as he sneers at the lower classes.

As a white Christian male he can, of course, pontificate on such matters, knowing he is never likely to placed in such a circumstance. Unlike the many female Jewish and Moslem women who, under pressure, have been and suffered the circumstances.

I stand by my view that all should be stripped of their powers. I don't need FL to give me lessons in anything regarding my moral values or stance on such matters.

He was, in fact, setting up an Aunt Sally
I have to admit, I had to look that up.

The game looks quite interesting. Pity I don't spend much time in Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Berckshire or Buckinhamshire these days where I believe it is still quite in fashion down at the local. It must not have become popular enough down in London.

With regards to the other use of "setting up an Aunt Sally" - the political use, I don't believe that was the case here, though that is not for me to say.

Anyhoo, the point I wanted to make was, you learn something new every day! If it was not for this thread I would not have known about "setting up an Aunt Sally", and feel so much better for it.

Thank you ORAC.

And these Sharia decided outcomes are enforceable.....How? and.......
Where?

Will Fraser - nail hit squarely on head - thank-you.

Although MAT must operate within the legal framework of England and Wales, this does not prevent or impede MAT from ensuring that all determinations reached by it are in accordance with one of the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law.

What is 'framework'? What does 'ensuring' mean? What interpretational conflicts exist between Islamic Sacred 'Law' and the framework (let alone 'the letter') of The Law. Even within the letter of The (existing) Law there is enormous scope for interpretation. That's why Lawyers exist - effectively to aid the consumer in clarifying the inconsistencies and inadequacies in current 'Law'. Hmmm - there's a thought.

Add to that the already unsatisfactory mix the incendiary aspect of Sacred 'Law' of any belief system into current 'Law' (let alone some arbitration service which uniquely gets away with the term 'Law' in its marketing) which has already incorporated 'belief' as a justifiable angle in even criminal litigation then this to me is pure madness.

If 'The Law' required any reference to Sharia as no more than an arbitration service then that wouldn't be so bad, but no, up in lights it is 'Sacred Law'. There's no clarity of hierarchy there. To many Muslims (and Christians too) that statement alone would put Sharia (or any other 'Sacred Law') call it 'arbitration' for now, above the 'framework' (:ugh:) of The Law anyway...:ugh::rolleyes::ugh:

Well, from now on, you best hope you're never up before him. Don't fancy your chances. Fifty on Orac going down.http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-character-smileys-236.gif (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/Free-Cool-Smileys/)

Will Fraser And these Sharia decided outcomes are enforceable.....How? and....... Where?You’ll find the answer in the first section ('Enforcement of the award') of the link I posted earlier: sections 66-71 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_4#pt1-pb11-l1g66)


ORAC
I did not set up an Aunt Sally. (According to my understanding of that expression.)
I thought it was clear I was giving a hypothetical situation.
You correctly identified which choice I’d make in that hypothetical situation.
I don't doubt that you have many skills but, based solely upon views you've expressed in posts on PPRuNe over many years, objectivity and impartiality are not IMHO amongst them.
(I accept, of course, that people may be very different in real life when they are not protected by anonymity.)

“as he sneers at the lower classes.”
You couldn’t be further from the truth but, just out of curiosity, how does so-called 'class' come into this discussion? :confused:

Flying Lawyer

That is a very troubling development. In the US one cannot alienate (sell or give away) his/her civil rights as enumerated. Defense of said rights is not enforced, though sanity would suggest a defense is at times necessary. Granting a religious body an administrative bearing in law is antithetical to what most in the West hold dear. Is it not so, Sir ?

Will

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be converting churches into mosques, banning Christmas in Yorkshire and...actually I can't think of any other clichés to show through use of sarcasm how daft that post is.[QUOTE]
Touchy, aren't we? Funny you should mention Christmas, but a few years ago here in Oz a paticular religious minority headed up a push to ban Christmas decorations in the streets and shop windows.

[QUOTE]What do you think 'they' are trying to eventually achieve, sand dune?[QUOTE] Oh, I dunno.....the usual "Islamic Caliphate" thing etc etc.

[QUOTE]Also, sitigeltfel, most Muslims in the UK are perfectly happy to be here and to abide by UK law.[QUOTE]Seems like a sizeable minority to me!

[QUOTE]According to the BBC there may be as many as 2.4 million Muslims living in the UK. The loss of a single life by terror is horrid, but you'd assume that there would be a lot more of it if even a small fraction of those 2.4 million were hostile to the UK.[QUOTE] Just remind me who executed the underground rail and airport bombings. "Home grown terrorists" is the phrase, I believe.
[QUOTE]You'd have young men with placards turning up at every march through cities by soldiers.[QUOTE] Wasn't there an incident where said groups demonstrated at a parade by a unit recently returned from Afghanistan?
[QUOTE]The fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are perfectly happy to get on with the lives. Concur. But there's a few that are quite happy to kill in the name of their religon. And it only takes a few.

Will Fraser has put it quite nicely. Something about separating religion from state.
I think the UK is a great place, but I can see it going to the dogs on an almost daily basis.

Will, it's probably best to split these into separate issues:
1) Validity and binding of independent or third-party arbitration
2) The use of Sharia Law as guidance for arbitration panels.
3) Types of Law (arguably a subset of 2)

In the US, it is perfectly legal, for two (or more) parties (individuals, corporations, etc.) to enter into binding arbitration, enforceable by the courts (i.e. if the parties don't adhere to the decision of arbitration).

There are several elements that need to be covered, a few key tenants would be:
a) Arbitration rules are defined, clearly understood by all parties, and are not illegal (in reference to due process, some basic tenants of legal process some of which FL gave the UK equivalent there of)
b) All parties agree to willing be bound by the arbitration process and do so of their own free will (i.e. not under duress (like a gun to their head)).
c) Decisions rendered by the Arbitration panel can not create or violate the law of the land:

- Scenario 1 e.g. if a Judge in a "normal court" makes a decision in a case that was not previously "law" it can become law, like supreme court rulings, particularly where the law is un/intentionally vague

- Scenario 2 e.g. An arbitration panel can not pass a ruling that would violate the constitution or other relevant legal statutes.

In the case of an Arbitration Panel guided by Sharia Law, for it to be legally binding, it would need to first comply with all of the above. For example, a Sharia Arbitration Panel could not sentence a woman to death by stoning in the US for adultery - although Sharia Court in a strict Islamic country could.

Unfortunately most Westerners are only familiar with the horror stories of Islamic Law and rulings by radical clerics. The truth is there are many similarities between Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology (and thus law) particularly regarding their respective core tenants.

Now, like in "Regular Court" as well as Sharia Law, there are different types of law, like commercial, religious, family law, civil, criminal, etc. etc.

As criminal law is between the state and the accused, it would fall outside scope of arbitration and is thus not applicable.

From my limited knowledge, and through my actual business dealings with Muslims and Muslim run companies, they tend to have strong ethics when it comes to upholding an agreement, particularly if under the scrutiny of their community. (What goes into that original agreement, and their bargaining abilities a completely different matter, of course).

Some of the rulings / law of these religious courts/arbitration panels in lets say Western countries may not be legally binding but do affect ones standing within a community.

A Jewish example is the Divorce, in which not only a civil divorce must be obtained, but also a Gett(?). Without the latter, one can not re-marry within the Jewish Faith and it could have other ramifications when dealing with others from the same belief system.

There are Christian (Catholic) equivalents of this as well (like they wont marry you, but it does not mean you can't get married)

A little long winded, and I realize I am not the most eloquent of writers, though hopefully it provides some helpful clarity.

From my limited knowledge, and through my actual business dealings with Muslims and Muslim run companies, they tend to have strong ethics when it comes to upholding an agreement, particularly if under the scrutiny of their community. (What goes into that original agreement, and their bargaining abilities a completely different matter, of course).

Certainly hasn't been my experience in Australia.

Buy a second hand car from a Muslim dealer in Sydney and see how you go.
I thought similarly in my early days, but have found exactly the opposite.
It would almost seem that many Muslims believe that it is perfectly OK to take down an infidel.

The big difference between the Sharia agreement and a court of law is that the arbitrator uses a religious base for authority, and I repeat, there are many principles there that I and most reasonable individuals would simply not subscribe to.
Along with all the other "religious courts" listed in previous posts, it is NOT acceptable in a secular society.
One of the concerns with allowing a large number of Muslims into a country is that a secular society is anathema to their belief system and they will do most anything to erode it.
And general acceptance of Sharia law is one very effective vehicle towards achieving that.

Given the comments decrying those who saw the use of Sharia courts by non-muslims as the thin edge of the wedge, the following is perhaps not totally off the subject of this thread.Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this Email is Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist. His references to past history are accurate and clear.


A German's View on Islam


A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen.

Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.


Peace-loving Germans ,Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.

Emanuel Tanay, M.D.

Where is your proof for such an obnoxious and incorrect observation? I'm a Jew and have many muslim friends and this is certainly not the case. Stop listening to the tripe that comes out of the media and start researching and form your own opinions. Yes there are some stupid muslims, but then there are some stupid Christians, Jews, Hindus's, Australians etc

Quant

My proof is in direct experience I'm sad to say (I'm a slow learner).

I too have both Jewish and Muslim friends (I told you I was a slow learner) and respect each for what they're worth.

Nevertheless, I have been on the receiving end and seen some pretty nefarious deals by people who's so called belief system ought to make them think otherwise.
As for Christians, I've yet to see ANY religious belief system over-ride the intrinsic selfishness of individuals, just as I've seen people of no religion exhibit altruism and general good.
In fact, I would steer towards agnostics for my business dealings because they at least have no shrine to hide behind.

Now to the ashes.
There comes a time my dear Quant that we of great generosity have to "lose" a match or two, else you Poms lose interest and give up.
We WILL be back!

Buy a second hand car from a Muslim dealer in Sydney and see how you go.Buy a second hand car from any dealer in London and see how you go. :rolleyes:

As to the silent Muslim majority, it is heartening to learn of the Mosque that recently tipped off the police to a group of fanatics in their midst who were planning something nasty. Hopefully the worm has turned.

Will Fraser
"That is a very troubling development."
It's not a recent development.
Resolution of disputes by arbitration, with arbitrators' decisions/awards being legally binding upon the parties, has existed for a very long time.
See Arbitration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration)

"In the US one cannot alienate (sell or give away) his/her civil rights as enumerated."
If you mean a right to have a dispute resolved by a court then what you say is not correct.
See: The very helpful explanation by birddog at post #41 and Arbitration in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States_of_America)

I've always had reservations about mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. ie Clauses by which the parties surrender their right to have a dispute under the contract decided by a court. That's just a personal view; such clauses are lawful both in the UK and the US. (And perhaps other jurisdictions?)
I remember reading about a proposal in the House to make such clauses in consumer contracts declared unfair and unenforceable in the US, but I don't know how far it got or if the proposal is still being pursued.
NB: I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information in the above links but, on a very quick scan, nothing stood out as glaringly inaccurate.

"Granting a religious body an administrative bearing in law is antithetical to what most in the West hold dear."
People who wish to resolve a civil dispute by arbitration are free to choose their own arbitrator(s).
UK and US law respects their right to do so.
FWIW, so do I.


Wiley
Even if Dr Tanay's views are relevant to the discussion (borderline IMHO), his views on Islam in particular and social matters in general are of no more value than yours, mine and most other contributors here.
Probably of less value.
I'm always very suspicious about the motives of, and tend to attach very little weight to the opinions/rantings of, people who write scaremongering emails of that sort and encourage others to 'pass it on':"Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late." :rolleyes:

.

I've always had reservations about mandatory binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. ie Clauses by which the parties surrender their right to have a dispute under the contract decided by a court. That's just a personal view; such clauses are lawful both in the UK and the US.Yes, I would agree with the sentiment, and these clauses can be lawful in the UK, but they can also be unlawful. As with many things, it depends.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations will apply, as will S91 of the 1996 Arbitration Act. I think the relevant sum for S91 is £5000. Far better, IMO, to go to the small claims court for such modest sums. For larger sums where the lawyers take a huge chunk of the cash in the legal system 'proper', arbitration should make more sense, and it should be binding.

Yeah, next thing you know they'll be converting churches into mosques, banning Christmas in Yorkshire and...actually I can't think of any other clichés to show through use of sarcasm how daft that post is.[quote]



[quote]Touchy, aren't we? Funny you should mention Christmas, but a few years ago here in Oz a paticular religious minority headed up a push to ban Christmas decorations in the streets and shop windows.

Yeah, a little bit touchy actually. Funny that.


Oh, I dunno.....the usual "Islamic Caliphate" thing etc etc. .

Crikey! I bet you've got a tin-foil hat too. Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny and that the Royal Family are actually space-lizards?





Just remind me who executed the underground rail and airport bombings. "Home grown terrorists" is the phrase, I believe.

I think you're missing the point entirely. If it is such a "sizeable minority" do you not think more of the 2.4 million would have carried out terrorism?

In 2007-2008 there were 277 deaths from stabbings in England and Wales alone. Compare that to the 60-odd that tragically lost their lives on 7/7 and the 3524 total deaths as a result of 'The Troubles' (according to the University of Ulster) and you'll see that the notion that British Muslims (including myself) are trying to instil an "Islamic Caliphate" through the use of terror is absolutely absurd.

Wasn't there an incident where said groups demonstrated at a parade by a unit recently returned from Afghanistan?

Yeah. Once.

I can think of at least four seperate incidents off the top of my head where dreadlocked, hippy, pot-smoking students have thrown stones or paint at the recruiting offices/stalls/presentation teams of the Armed Forces. That doesn't make me think that the great socialist revolution lead by the liberated, educated sons and daughters of the lower middle class is around the corner.

Yeah. Once.

If by that you're referring to the demoinstrations in Luton, then you need to do your research a little more thoroughly. There are groups in Luton that are well documented & very much more active than 'yeah once'.

Your sarcasm undermines your integrity in the debate & by the way, the past tense of lead is led, not lead. Just for your information.

If by that you're referring to the demoinstrations in Luton, then you need to do your research a little more thoroughly. There are groups in Luton that are well documented & very much more active than 'yeah once'.


I'm sure that there are indeed a collection of young men in Luton who download badly-dubbed videos of men with AK47's running around and getting hyped-up swearing bloody Jihad on the infidel.

I'm also sure there are hundreds more wearing their hats the wrong way, with their jeans around their backsides watching MTV thinking they are 'gangsta rappers yo brap big tings'.



Knife crime (and associated with it 'gangsta' culture) has claimed many more lives than Islamic terrorism has in the UK. Let us keep that in perspective for a second.

& by the way, the past tense of lead is led, not lead. Just for your information.

And thank you for pointing out my typo. In any case, "demoinstrations" is spelt "demonstrations".

Flying Lawyer

I defer to your legal experience. My bringing up 'inalienability' had to do with people relinquishing any basic right reserved to the people, and not to the state. The State is subservient to its citizens; rather obviously it has been forgotten by many that this is so. Our Constitution does not grant rights to people, it protects them; they are given by God.

I believe in contracts and the right of the civil authority to keep the Hell out of people's business. My issue was in transferring the administrative authority to enforce contracts from the government. An agreement signed off by two or more parties is valid when only two conditions are met: Each signatory is competent to agree, and their contract violates no law.

If one renegs on a valid contract arrived at by arbitration, the recourse for the aggrieved party is a judicial judgment. This judgment must at all times be independent of religion, or extra legal coercion.

It is the leakage by popular assent of authority to the religious body that worries me. I worry about people who associate (wrongly) the agreement with the Law. Two agreeable people can agree to have Laurel and Hardy as channeled by Uri Geller decide their conflict. Make no mistake, there will be those who relish the (mistaken) association of religion with Civil Code.

Will

Will
I don’t entirely understand what you are saying.
What basic right is relinquished by people who agree to their dispute being resolved by arbitration? The right to have their dispute resolved by a court?

Our Constitution does not grant rights to people, it protects them; they are given by God.
I agree that is the position in America. The Constitution reflects the opening words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

I believe in contracts and the right of the civil authority to keep the Hell out of people's business.
Does that mean if citizens agree to have their dispute resolved by an arbitrator/arbitrators of their choice the 'civil authority' should keep the Hell out of it? Even if they agree to arbitration according to religious principles?

My issue was in transferring the administrative authority to enforce contracts from the government.
Arbitrators in the UK do not have power to enforce contracts / their decisions; only the courts can do that. As far as I’m aware, the same applies in the US.

If one renegs on a valid contract arrived at by arbitration, the recourse for the aggrieved party is a judicial judgment. This judgment must at all times be independent of religion, or extra legal coercion.
I'm not sure I understand.
Do you mean if one party to a contract reneges the only remedy should be recourse to the courts for judicial judgment?
An agreement between parties to have their dispute resolved by arbitration and to abide by the arbitrators’ decision is also a contract.
The ‘winner’ has recourse to the courts to enforce the arbitrators' decision.
The judgment of the court is independent of religion or 'extra legal coercion' but it will not, save in exceptional circumstances, be a rehearing of the original dispute. ie Losers in an arbitration can't simply start again just because they didn't like the outcome of an arbitration to which they agreed.

It is the leakage by popular assent of authority to the religious body that worries me.
Does that mean you are worried because people have the freedom to have their dispute decided by arbitrators of their choice?

I worry about people who associate (wrongly) the agreement with the Law.
I don’t understand.

Two agreeable people can agree to have Laurel and Hardy as channeled by Uri Geller decide their conflict.
Should they be free to do so?

Make no mistake, there will be those who relish the (mistaken) association of religion with Civil Code.
That takes us back to the beginning:
Do you believe the State should/should not interfere with citizens’ right to have their dispute resolved by arbitrators of their choice?


.

Do you believe the State should/should not interfere with citizens’ right to have their dispute resolved by arbitrators of their choice? If the situation is such that, for both religious and cultural reasons, one or more of the parties may be being unduly persuaded to submit to such arbitration - yes. Especially when such arbitration leads to judgements not in accordance with UK law, and which the UK authorities will then be obliged to enforce.

The Times: ........"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."......

ORAC

I know nothing about the case you quote (and couldn't comment on it even if I did) but, for information:
The fact that an arbitration results in an award different from that which would or probably would have been given if the matter had been decided by a UK Court does not of itself mean that the decision was not in accordance with UK law.

Briefly, we misunderstand eachother almost completely. I am a little out my element, and if I am misconstruing UK Code and regulations, I think it is worth the discussion; what you do there will most likely have an eventual bearing on us.

Nothing seems wrong so far, I grant you that. When people who cannot understand the difference between a judicial decree and a mullah's condemnation, the results will be horrible. Citizens of Britain will be submitting to Sharia, make no mistake, and whether you agree or cite enough code or not, the damage will be done. Living in a muslim country, a non-muslim is a second class person. Britain is becoming a Muslim Country, Queen's Bench notwithstanding. It is the abdication of personal freedom and civil rights to a religious order that is happening, and is in this country not allowed, by virtue of our ennabling document.

Two country's may not exist in one domain. Regardless the ideology, mixing borders, language, and culture is a toxic pot.

Will