PDA

View Full Version : Revealed: UKs first official sharia courts


TheMakel
14th Sep 2008, 10:57
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece)

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.


Grrrrr! Are Labour deliberately trying to destroy this country? :mad:

Old Grey
14th Sep 2008, 14:11
There is nothing new beneath the Sun.....

Beth Din (http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/)

Surely one religion-based civil court is as good/bad/indifferent as any other?

Overdrive
14th Sep 2008, 16:00
Unbelievable. Well, it would be anywhere but here.

Can we have British courts in Muslimostan then?

Or can non-muslim British men have their divorces heard sympathetically by sharia judges?

tony draper
14th Sep 2008, 16:09
Well that's the trick in the UK now, be a minority,then the fluffies will allow you a voice fifty times louder than your numbers merit.
:rolleyes:

larssnowpharter
14th Sep 2008, 16:20
Ah well,

one expects that the likes of Donne are turning in their grave. The whole point of the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment was to separate the State and religion.

Oh buggah! One has misremembered that HM is the head of one or two of them.

Captain Stable
14th Sep 2008, 19:00
I don't know whether people have read the whole article, but it points out that British jews have had access to British Beth Din courts for over 100 years.

These tribunals only have power to arbitrate in cases where both parties to a civil dispute agree to present their cases to the tribunal. It is not, under British law, a "court". Nor can their findings ever run counter to pre-existing British civil law.

ORAC
14th Sep 2008, 19:22
Nor can their findings ever run counter to pre-existing British civil law.

Sunday Times: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece) .....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.....

Avitor
14th Sep 2008, 19:27
TheMakel.

"Grrrrr! Are Labour deliberately trying to destroy this country"? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

Most indubitably. :cool:

Dan D'air
14th Sep 2008, 20:12
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Beatriz Fontana
14th Sep 2008, 20:17
Nothing new. Channel Four had a whole programme on it back in February (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/divorce.html).

If you ask me, let's just take God (or whichever name you take the entity by) out of the judiciary and legal system altogether.

Recently I had to swear on a bible. Wow, what fun that was...

Bern Oulli
15th Sep 2008, 08:57
Beatriz Fontana, In what situation did you have to swear on the bible? In any court in the United Kingdom you always have the option to "affirm", as in "I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I will give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Indeed, it can be said that swearing on a book you do not believe in is not a good oath. Since 1695 the right to give an affirmation has existed in the United Kingdom, and is now embodied in the Oaths Act 1978, c.19.

crisso
15th Sep 2008, 10:22
"Grrrrr! Are Labour deliberately trying to destroy this country"?

As another poster said - yes - but then, back in 1966 an ATC Corporal said to me - "If you want an immigrant for your neighbour, vote Labour!"

True then and still true today...

Sallyann1234
15th Sep 2008, 10:43
Sunday 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.....
This family chose to go to the 'sharia court' and to abide by their decisions. If they had gone to the conventional court they would have got a different decision, but they chose not to.
They could equally have gone to an independent arbitrator, or a trusted friend, or someone they picked at random off the street, to advise them how to split the money.
They saved official court time and costs, we should be grateful for that.

Flying_Frisbee
15th Sep 2008, 11:20
As another poster said - yes - but then, back in 1966 an ATC Corporal said to me - "If you want an immigrant for your neighbour, vote Labour!"

So was this an perceptive and ironic comment on the rich and varied multicultural history of the British Isles, from Celts, Angles and Saxons through to Normans, from Romans, Flemings and Hugenots to Irish?
Or was it just a wee xenophobic whinge?

Beatriz Fontana
15th Sep 2008, 11:27
Wow, semantic central on here at the moment, isn't it? It's a turn of phrase, Bern. It was assumed that I would swear on the bible by the person handing it over, and I know from others that this assumption is quite wide spread and the "no, I wish to affirm" still raises the odd eyebrow. It niggles but I don't get upset by it - that's the difference.

Anyway, you can get divorced for about 60 on the internet these days.

ORAC
15th Sep 2008, 11:57
If they had gone to the conventional court they would have got a different decision, but they chose not to. The misgivings in most circles is over the freedom of that choice. Most case brought before the court will be over marriage, marital violence and custody; all cases where it is thought the female parties will come under intense pressure to accept the sharia court rather than go to the court of the land.

It comes down to how much choice you truly believe they really have.

I could point you at sites citing the numerous problems in the equivalent jewish courts where the husbands' in divorce cases hold out for years either out of spite or to extort custody or material wealth out of the case.

Rather than use one as justification for the other I'd abolish the rights of both, and to hell with the pennies it's supposed to save us all.

Old Grey
15th Sep 2008, 17:18
Rather than use one as justification for the other I'd abolish the rights of both, and to hell with the pennies it's supposed to save us all.

Yes, well said! :D

Law should be based on reason and the common good, not on superstition.