Britain adopts Sharia law. Is this true?

article from Bishop Nazir Ali describing some of the problems with Sharia arbitration in similar vein to that mentioned by IA:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../21/do2103.xml

Quote:

---

C'mon Tribes you can do better than that mate. You had a minute dig at an excellent post by Louis and then forget to refute his assertions.

---

Well can you see the problem with his assertions ?
Is this sort of arbitration meaningful for the British ?
Does it give equality before the law for all British ?
The arbitration process is a long established element of British civil law so it does suggest that it is meaningful doesn't it .
Since anyone can choose to go to arbitration and decide what the nature of that process is (as long as it doesn't contradict British law) then it does give equality doesn't it .
Unless of course you want to change the law so that it is that anyone can use it unless they are British muslims and any form of reference is acceptable in that process as long as it isn't sharia .
So are you to change the law to remove the choice of some people , or are you to abolish the process entirely so that you clog up the court system with every trivial dispute imaginable ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well can you see the problem with his assertions ?
Is this sort of arbitration meaningful for the British ?
Does it give equality before the law for all British ?
The arbitration process is a long established element of British civil law so it does suggest that it is meaningful doesn't it .
Since anyone can choose to go to arbitration and decide what the nature of that process is (as long as it doesn't contradict British law) then it does give equality doesn't it .
Unless of course you want to change the law so that it is that anyone can use it unless they are British muslims and any form of reference is acceptable in that process as long as it isn't sharia .
So are you to change the law to remove the choice of some people , or are you to abolish the process entirely so that you clog up the court system with every trivial dispute imaginable ?

---

We were saying that the courts based on Jewish law might need to be dissolved as well. Just because there has been a law on the books for 100 years doesn't mean it should stay around. The law sounds like a throwback to when people didn't see Jews or Muslims as British - they do now, so they should invite them to help construct laws that are fair and can be accepted by all in a singular society.

If the courts were simply Muslim run British courts that would be one thing, but the fact that they have a track record of finding disproportionately in favor of males over females and are looking to take on criminal cases should be a sign that something has broken. I don't see how people can say that there is equality when in a regular British court a boy would get 50% and a girl would get 50%, but in the Islamic courts you are likely to find 75/25 splits.

Quote:

---

The law sounds like a throwback to when people didn't see Jews or Muslims as British

---

The legal provision has nothing whasoever to do with religion or ethnicity , it allows for any two parties to seek legal redress on their own agreed terms without the need for a full court hearing .

Quote:

---

the fact that they have a track record of finding disproportionately in favor of males over females

---

Do they ?
In the single case mentioned in this topic from which you get your "track record" what are the details ?
Was there any other provisions for the daughters in their lives ?
What was the nature of the estate ?
Did any of the children contribute to the estate ?

Quote:

---

and are looking to take on criminal cases should be a sign that something has broken.

---

There is no provision at all for criminal cases to be taken through this method .

Quote:

---

I don't see how people can say that there is equality when in a regular British court a boy would get 50% and a girl would get 50%

---

No they wouldn't , they would only get equal shares if the judgement based on the nature of the case ruled that an equal share was appropriate .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well can you see the problem with his assertions ?
Is this sort of arbitration meaningful for the British ?
Does it give equality before the law for all British ?
The arbitration process is a long established element of British civil law so it does suggest that it is meaningful doesn't it .
Since anyone can choose to go to arbitration and decide what the nature of that process is (as long as it doesn't contradict British law) then it does give equality doesn't it .

---

You know, Tribes, in previous eras leftist criticism of the law led to gems such Anatole France's:
'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread'.*

In other words, what may look like equality before the law, can be a very deceptive instrument of inequality. This was once the level of leftist criticism.

Nowadays, what is the contribution of the left to questions of the multi-cultural society? Ridicule, blind spots and tired repeats of conditioned anti-racist reflexes. While the continuing drama unfolds.



The left is dead. Fragony is Europe's greatest philospher.


* In full: "Autre motif d’orgueuil, que d’ tre citoyen! Cela consiste pour les pauvres soutenir et conserver les riches dans leur puissance et leur oisivit. Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse galit des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain."

Its simple Louis , the main thrust against the people using the arbitration method for civil disputes rather than the criminal courts is that some people might be pressured by other parties into accepting things that they don't really want to accept . Yet since that can also apply under the criminal courts its bollox isn't it .

But lets explore further some hypotheticals on this "track record" example if it was under the judgement of a regular court rather than an arbitration panel .
Say perhaps that the estate consisted of two textile works , the sons are the managers of the factories , can they claim under the law a greater share of the estate due to their contributions ?
Since this case involves Muslims what if the daughters had been in arranged marriages where the father had paid a dowry to ensure their financial future , does that mean that their entitlement to an equal share on the remaining estate is compromised under the law ?

So while you berate others "blind spots" you havn't really looked at or thought about the topic at all have you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So while you berate others "blind spots" you havn't really looked at or thought about the topic at all have you

---

Of course he hasn't. Nobody has except for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do they ?
In the single case mentioned in this topic from which you get your "track record" what are the details ?
Was there any other provisions for the daughters in their lives ?
What was the nature of the estate ?
Did any of the children contribute to the estate ?

---

I don't know. Do you?

Quote:

---

I don't know. Do you?

---

Exactly ,yet you claimed without any notion of the details of the case or any understanding of the laws that a court would award equal shares .
It shows that you havn't looked at or thought about the topic at all , and on top of that you claim that a single incident of which you know no details constitutes a "track record" .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Exactly ,yet you claimed without any notion of the details of the case or any understanding of the laws that a court would award equal shares .
It shows that you havn't looked at or thought about the topic at all , and on top of that you claim that a single incident of which you know no details constitutes a "track record" .

---

Technically it constitutes a record. There are other stories which make the issue worth reading about, such as a domestic violence whitewash and charge retraction by more than one woman. As there is very little out about it aside from condemnation, I think it is fair and reasonable to clamor for more information. You know little about it yourself, aside from that "the UK has had religious tribunals for around 100 years" and "tribunals are viable way to try civil cases as long as the rulings are in accordance with civil law." I agree with those sentiments, but I don't think that they illuminate the nature of these tribunals. I am interested for more information.

Instead of helping to bring that to us as an enlightened person with an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, you condemn us as weak minded fools and criticize us with your self righteousness and egotism. I'm sorry if I "haven't looked at or thought about the topic at all". It is clear, through my numerous posts on the topic that I haven't thought about this at all. Call me a fool if you must, but what is discussing the topic if not thinking about it?

Quote:

---

There are other stories which make the issue worth reading about, such as a domestic violence whitewash and charge retraction by more than one woman.

---

Which happens in cases across the spectrum when they are brought through the criminal system rather than the arbitration one ...so your point was ?
Thats just another example of you not thinking about the topic isn't it .
In the event of someone retracting in a criminal case concerning domestic violence what is the outcome ?
Is the only course of action open legally to charge the alledged victim with wasting police time thus criminalising the victim ?
Since the main thrust throughout this topic has been the pressuring of people in relation to their course of action how does changing it from a civil case to a criminal one eliminate that ?
It doesn't does it , its just window dressing .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Its simple Louis , the main thrust against the people using the arbitration method for civil disputes rather than the criminal courts is that some people might be pressured by other parties into accepting things that they don't really want to accept . Yet since that can also apply under the criminal courts its bollox isn't it .

---

The main thrust is worry over an inherently inequal law system settling disputes that are consequently sanctioned by the British State. And of vulnerable people being pressured into these courts of arbitration.
And indeed, there are similar mechanisms at work that prevent women from seeking access to British criminal courts. However, just why this then should lead to less protection instead of more protection is utterly beyond me.

Surprise me, and show me a study that shows that Islamic women, especially the more vulnerable and least integrated, would be less shy to go to a Sharia tribunal than a British court in the case of domestic violence. Or something like that. This would gave me food for thought, since this would pose a practical dillema.
Short of that, I think I'll label it needless relativism.

Actually, no. I think I'll label it 'selling out of British subjects to satisfy unremitting leftist urge to feel moral superiority over their racist compatriots'. I'm going to take all your comments in this thread, write them on a postcard, and send it to a battered Muslim woman in a woman's shelter. I'm sure she'll love how you showed the nationalists and racists and stood up for her rights. She must be enthralled that the failure of standard criminal law to protect her leads leftist Britain to the conclusion that we might as well subject her daughters to Sharia courts then.

Quote:

---

But lets explore further some hypotheticals on this "track record" example if it was under the judgement of a regular court rather than an arbitration panel .
Say perhaps that the estate consisted of two textile works , the sons are the managers of the factories , can they claim under the law a greater share of the estate due to their contributions ?
Since this case involves Muslims what if the daughters had been in arranged marriages where the father had paid a dowry to ensure their financial future , does that mean that their entitlement to an equal share on the remaining estate is compromised under the law ?

---

I'm sure you googled yourself one fine inheritance case. I am not sure which one and I am also not sure I want to find out and dicuss it into infinite detail.

Below is what I am talking about, and why I think the introduction of Sharia arbitration is a Pandora's box. Six cases of Sharia dipsute settlement:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Apart from my (quite deliberatly mind-blowingly irritating :whip:) mantra about the uselesness of the left, another mantra of mine is that anti-racism beats anti-sexism every single time. Well here above you have it. Rights of Muslims at the expense of rights of women. I for one would not be prepared to subject British subjects to this.

I'm fed up with our shelters exploding with abused immigrant women while people persist in singing the praise of the multi-cultural richness of our society.

I love it when Luigi cultures multi's :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

In the US, I point out, at city, county, state and national levels, "arbitration panels" are used frequently to resolve civil and minor (non-felony) criminal disputes, to save the money and trouble attendant to formal court proceedings. This has been so for at least the past 50 years here, and those panels often rely on interest (read: religious) groups to do the task for cheap. Their judgments and procedures are administratively reviewed by a court, for compliance with law. I myself got divorced in Tampa, Florida using an abritrator, who was, incidentally, some kinda Southern Baptist minister. He opened and closed his 'proceedings' with a prayer.

So, did Hillsboro County, Florida adopt Southern Baptist law? No. It accepted the free services of a volunteer minister to arbitrate and resolve a (hopefully) minor legal concern, to which Deborah and I both had consented. Two weeks later, I got the notarized Review of Dissolution of Marriage Proceedings, signed by some Judge I'd never met face-to-face.

---

We are talking about two very different things here Kukri. Did your arbitrator refer to the Old Testament for guidance and make his decision accordingly based on biblical dogma and tradition? I think the answer is probably "no."

Please see my earlier posts on this matter. These "arbitrators" in Britain are making decisions based on Sharia Law which has a bias against women built right into it.

Guys, I grew up in Saudi Arabia. Lived there full time from the time I was nine until I was about 14, then I came back only for summers and holidays until I was about 20. I have seen firsthand what life is like for women in traditional Muslim households. If any of you think that women "choosing" to be bound by the rulings of a Sharia court are really "choosing," then let me assure you, you are labouring under a massive self-deception.

Nice link Louis , what about this one....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/670142.stm .....doesn't that suggest that you are too narrow in your focus .
Anyway removing the arbitration process will have absolutely no impact at all , all it will do is make some headline writers feel better about themselves and find a new bogeyman to write about .
You skirt the issue entirely , like if you take this from Goof.....

Quote:

---

If any of you think that women "choosing" to be bound by the rulings of a Sharia court are really "choosing," then let me assure you, you are labouring under a massive self-deception.

---

...how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?

Quote:

---

I'm going to take all your comments in this thread, write them on a postcard, and send it to a battered Muslim woman in a woman's shelter.

---

Good , and are you going to send the same postcard to a battered non-muslim woman in a shelter who was intimidated into not pressing criminal charges ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Anyway removing the arbitration process will have absolutely no impact at all , all it will do is make some headline writers feel better about themselves and find a new bogeyman to write about .
You skirt the issue entirely , like if you take this from Goof........how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?

---

Stop calling it "arbitration." That's the first step in understanding this issue. It is not "arbitration." An arbitrator is non-biased, and that is simply not the case here.

Once you get that through your head, the answer to the rest of your questions will become clear. You're a smart guy, except when you are deliberately deceiving yourself, as you are quite plainly doing in this case.

Quote:

---

Stop calling it "arbitration."

---

But it is arbitration , the selected terms of reference for the arbitration process are only a tiny part of the topic .
But you are a smart guy Goof answer this ....how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?
Now you might take Boatengs ideas from that BBC article as a model on how to get round the pressure issue , but how would they work ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But it is arbitration , the selected terms of reference for the arbitration process are only a tiny part of the topic .
But you are a smart guy Goof answer this ....how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?
Now you might take Boatengs ideas from that BBC article as a model on how to get round the pressure issue , but how would they work ?

---

There would be a less loaded deck. On the one hand you would have pressure from your friends and relatives - but you would be able to escape the pressure in the law. Here you have all that pressure plus the added pressure of the court pretending to be the law - you stand no chance. This is effectively the state giving up on Muslims; letting the wolves have free range of the sheep - and they will push for what they consider "small criminal cases" next.

Nip it at the bud - get rid of all religious arbitration courts. They can have courts run predominately by Jews, Muslims or Christians - but they can't be based on a different legal code - unless they have no legal authority. If people come to the U.K. and refuse to live under the law of the land when they have their own say in it - there is no place for them.

I'm not going to believe any of you, you all have a track record of being wrong, well, technically anyway. :sweatdrop:

I still don't see the ideological point for religious courts in a secular system but then I guess it frees up a lot of money for politicians to raise their own wages or catch them criminals who feed pigeons so it's probably a good thing overall. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But it is arbitration , the selected terms of reference for the arbitration process are only a tiny part of the topic .
But you are a smart guy Goof answer this ....how will the removal of the arbitration process make any difference whatsoever to the womens ability to "choose" without being pressured ?
Now you might take Boatengs ideas from that BBC article as a model on how to get round the pressure issue , but how would they work ?

---

Because on one hand they will be pressured by their community to go through the Muslim arbitration. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, not. Being secular country and have all the rules, regulations, arbitration and laws apply to all regardless of faith, gender or wealth or admit that there is something wrong when you have to have different processes based on religion, ethnic background or culture.

On the other hand having an arbitration panel can help communicate the wider community standards with useful internal cultural values. If the arbitration panel helps integrate it can be a very good thing.

Where initiatives like this can fail is when they are put above the law, or more likely when it is assumed that one size fits all approach. Islam has many different versions and these are viewed through different cultural prisms. Imagine Catholics being put through a Christian arbitration panel of Mormons... things could get convoluted...

I demand seperate atheist arbiration panels!!

Quote:

---

This is effectively the state giving up on Muslims; letting the wolves have free range of the sheep - and they will push for what they consider "small criminal cases" next.

---

Scare stories Tuff , there is no provision whatsoever for the arbitration process to deal with criminal cases , and there is no way at all that any such attempt would make it through the houses .

Quote:

---

If people come to the U.K. and refuse to live under the law of the land when they have their own say in it - there is no place for them.

---

It is the law of the land , what you want is to change the law of the land . Why should British people lose their long established right to choose to go to arbitration ?

Quote:

---

They can have courts run predominately by Jews, Muslims or Christians - but they can't be based on a different legal code - unless they have no legal authority.

---

You really don't understand the nature of this law do you .

What I really don't understand is why they have to call it Sharia. If it has little to nothing to do with Sharia, why can't they call it an Islamic tribunal or something? Muslims acting as intermediaries is not a problem - helping sub-cultures to better understand a faceless and in some ways foreign legal system is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Scare stories Tuff , there is no provision whatsoever for the arbitration process to deal with criminal cases , and there is no way at all that any such attempt would make it through the houses .

---

No that is quite the natural development, and officials will be thrilled to have these sharia courts aid them when dealing with the problematic muslim youths they can't get a grip on. And you will once again say what's the problem.

Quote:

---

What I really don't understand is why they have to call it Sharia.

---

What exactly is sharia law Tuff ?

Quote:

---

No that is quite the natural development

---

It is the natural development for someone whose "mind" convinces them that the Muslims are out to get them and are going to take over the world Frag , it is not a a natural development for British law or the parliamentary system in Britain , if it were then there would have been the Christian and Jewish arbitration courts taking over the criminal cases already .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is the natural development for someone whose "mind" convinces them that the Muslims are out to get them and are going to take over the world Frag , it is not a a natural development for British law or the parliamentary system in Britain , if it were then there would have been the Christian and Jewish arbitration courts taking over the criminal cases already .

---

Why would these be convenient?

Luigi describes it well. "Ridicule, blind spots and tired repeats of conditioned anti-racist reflexes."

sounds familiar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What exactly is sharia law Tuff ?

---

Certainly not the british law, or is it? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Certainly not the british law, or is it? :inquisitive:

---

clicky

In the end all can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

clicky

---

Interesting.
So basically english law is derived from religious laws and thus not secular, a reason to be worried?
Is that why women still get paid less for doing the same job?

I'm also rather sure that a lot of people critisized the Taliban for applying sharia law in Afghanistan, so basically that is not true then? Either they didn't use sharia law, which apparently is just a guidance for how to look at laws and not a code of law itself anyway, or we were all wrong and stupid or we were all mislead or we're all living in theocracies and have to invade ourselves next, I'm a bit confused now. :dizzy2:

No, i never studied Sharia or Islam before anyone asks but I demand to get some black and white now, those shades of grey are pretty annoying, ok?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Interesting.
So basically english law is derived from religious laws and thus not secular, a reason to be worried?

---

No. That is a poor wiki article. Very few aspects of English common law can be traced to Islamic influence.

The author does not understand Western legal history very well, of either common or civil law. In fact, I'd label it misleading.

I am not well versed enough in Islamic legal history to make the same statement about the article's treatment of Islamic law, but I would say that, in wiki-terminology, the 'neutrality' of the article can be disputed.