Thread: BRITAIN ‘HAS AT LEAST 85 SHARIA LAW COURTS’

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by sanchauk

That's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying though is I have no problem with two consenting adults deciding to follow the tenets of a sharia divorce and having that agreement civily legalised as part of a civil divorce proceeding - similar to a Jewish Get. However, before we even consider integrating a sharia friendly divorce procedure we should integrate Islamic marriages so that they are civily registered. Now lets bring it back to the why not the what. Why haven't the mainstream Islamic "churches" combined civil and Islamic marriages?

Sorry - I was trying to paraphrase others views not yours - I don't think I have heard enough to even begin to guess.

As for the islamic marriage thing - absolutely no idea. Do you know?

If you can't answer that question then why do you feel qualified to answer the question on whether Sharia presents a threat or not?

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by sanchauk

That's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying though is I have no problem with two consenting adults deciding to follow the tenets of a sharia divorce and having that agreement civily legalised as part of a civil divorce proceeding - similar to a Jewish Get. However, before we even consider integrating a sharia friendly divorce procedure we should integrate Islamic marriages so that they are civily registered. Now lets bring it back to the why not the what. Why haven't the mainstream Islamic "churches" combined civil and Islamic marriages?

Sorry - I was trying to paraphrase others views not yours - I don't think I have heard enough to even begin to guess.

As for the islamic marriage thing - absolutely no idea. Do you know?

I believe Islamic Marriages & Divorces are not recognised under civil law, so they have to go through both the religious ceremonies and the civil.

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by sanchauk

That's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying though is I have no problem with two consenting adults deciding to follow the tenets of a sharia divorce and having that agreement civily legalised as part of a civil divorce proceeding - similar to a Jewish Get. However, before we even consider integrating a sharia friendly divorce procedure we should integrate Islamic marriages so that they are civily registered. Now lets bring it back to the why not the what. Why haven't the mainstream Islamic "churches" combined civil and Islamic marriages?

Sorry - I was trying to paraphrase others views not yours - I don't think I have heard enough to even begin to guess.

As for the islamic marriage thing - absolutely no idea. Do you know?

I believe Islamic Marriages & Divorces are not recognised under civil law, so they have to go through both the religious ceremonies and the civil.

If the vicar, rabbi etc isn't a registered registrar neither would a church or synagogue wedding be civily recognised. A far fetched scenario, but shows how further integrated other religions are with civil law.

There is no reason why Iman's can't be registrars and Mosques are able to be registered for the solemnision of marriages.

My point is that before we start considering integrating Sharia rulings in divorces for example we have someway to go on integrating the marriage in the first place!

Why would a religion want legal integration for it's rulings on divorce before it has sorted out it's integration on civil marriage - thus affording it's womenfolk far more protection under the law? Is the push for recognition of Sharia a means for integration or division?

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by sanchauk

I temper my comments on the highlighted by saying that as a general principle people should be free to turn to their religious leaders and follow religious rulings as long as they are lawful.

The impact or risk is not in the what but the why. There is a huge difference a religion or religious based body engaging with the state to enable religious laws to act in harmony with the state law, for example the Jewish Get or compliance of Islamic banks and a religious body attempting to impose primacy of religious law over state law. One is constructive and integrating the other divisive.

Yes. I agree. But the current Sharia courts of arbitration sit within your first definition.

If there was a move towards the second, I would fight against it.

No they do not Bazzihno.
There are already documented cases of Sharia Courts in the UK trying criminal cases.
At least 6 cases of domestic violence have bee addressed in Sharia Courts. These are criminal offences being dealt with outside the law of this country. In each case the person who originally made the complaint to the Police was compelled (by the Sharia Court) to withdraw it.

So given that Sharia Courts in the UK are placing themselves above criminal law in the UK are you going to fight against it as you have just said you will?

Originally Posted by sanchauk

If the vicar, rabbi etc isn't a registered registrar neither would a church or synagogue wedding be civily recognised. A far fetched scenario, but shows how further integrated other religions are with civil law.

There is no reason why Iman's can't be registrars and Mosques are able to be registered for the solemnision of marriages.

My point is that before we start considering integrating Sharia rulings in divorces for example we have someway to go on integrating the marriage in the first place!

Why would a religion want legal integration for it's rulings on divorce before it has sorted out it's integration on civil marriage - thus affording it's womenfolk far more protection under the law? Is the push for recognition of Sharia a means for integration or division?

Good question and its what this thread has been revolving around:

On the one side, as milsum, jag and others eloquently argue, its a source of division, creating a seperate code of law that would subvert our current legal system. Which is a genuine concern I must agree.

On the other side, as Bazz and myself etc, believe it is a chance for integration, as long as its functions can only operate in the same way as the Beth Din.

There is no simple answer to this, but I believe it becomes a question of how the strictures of operation are legislated for. There's a whole can of worms in that one I must say.

Milsum and Jag are right when they say that that Dr Hasan and others would like to see the full effect of Sharia Law enabled in this country, but I am afraid thats next to an impossibility as it would immediately come into conflict with existing legislation such as the Human Rights Act both at national and European levels. Moreover there is neither the population/conversion nor even financial base for Muslims to even attempt to carry out such a plan.

The lines are firmly entrenched now, and I'm staying with my Beth Din model; based upon historical precedent and proven worth. I also reaffirm my argumnet for better education of British Imams for a British Islam, not the the Hangover Islam of the Tribal Areas that Hasan is calling for.

Originally Posted by rampant

Originally Posted by sanchauk

If the vicar, rabbi etc isn't a registered registrar neither would a church or synagogue wedding be civily recognised. A far fetched scenario, but shows how further integrated other religions are with civil law.

There is no reason why Iman's can't be registrars and Mosques are able to be registered for the solemnision of marriages.

My point is that before we start considering integrating Sharia rulings in divorces for example we have someway to go on integrating the marriage in the first place!

Why would a religion want legal integration for it's rulings on divorce before it has sorted out it's integration on civil marriage - thus affording it's womenfolk far more protection under the law? Is the push for recognition of Sharia a means for integration or division?

Good question and its what this thread has been revolving around:

On the one side, as milsum, jag and others eloquently argue, its a source of division, creating a seperate code of law that would subvert our current legal system. Which is a genuine concern I must agree.

On the other side, as Bazz and myself etc, believe it is a chance for integration, as long as its functions can only operate in the same way as the Beth Din.

There is no simple answer to this, but I believe it becomes a question of how the strictures of operation are legislated for. There's a whole can of worms in that one I must say.

Milsum and Jag are right when they say that that Dr Hasan and others would like to see the full effect of Sharia Law enabled in this country, but I am afraid thats next to an impossibility as it would immediately come into conflict with existing legislation such as the Human Rights Act both at national and European levels. Moreover there is neither the population/conversion nor even financial base for Muslims to even attempt to carry out such a plan.

The lines are firmly entrenched now, and I'm staying with my Beth Din model; based upon historical precedent and proven worth. I also reaffirm my argumnet for better education of British Imams for a British Islam, not the the Hangover Islam of the Tribal Areas that Hasan is calling for.

Yep - the BEth Din model works well and enables a Jew to combine his religious & civil obligations. Oi vey!

What I don't have a feeling for is whether Mr.average Muslim man in the Uk thinks wouldn't it be great if I could combine my beliefs and civil obligations in a oner, such as with Beth Din, or views Sharia as another brick in a wall isolating their culture from one they may see as revolting?

On the balance of what I have researched I think it is a tool of division, as I see little or no progress on integrating other facets, such as marriage.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

If we have people who are not being educated as to their rights - this is not a weakness of allowing Sharia courts, this is a weakness of the education system.

In many cases with spouses or even entire families coming from abroad they are past the school leaving age & illiterate even in their native languages let alone English. They live in highly patriarchal societies where the family's actions are controlled for them.

Remember the recent postal voting scandal? Of course all the people who applied for the votes then cast them themselves under their own free will.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

In relation to duress. I have been in an abusive relationship (actually, a couple). Guess what? I chose to be a victim and chose to live in fear and chose to not tell anyone. And then I chose to get out of those abusive relationships.

Well done on getting out. However if this happened in the UK you were not cast out by your entire family & community (in a nation where you could not speak the language) as a result of your actions, were you?

You were not condemned to death for apostasy, having been deemed to have left your faith by leaving the relationship, were you? These things do happen.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

I ask again, and no-one has given a satisfactory answer: What new or additional impact or risk does allowing a voluntary religion based system of arbitration introduce?

What we are trying to tell you is that the system is unlikely to be voluntary for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Originally Posted by jagman

No they do not Bazzihno.
There are already documented cases of Sharia Courts in the UK trying criminal cases.
At least 6 cases of domestic violence have bee addressed in Sharia Courts. These are criminal offences being dealt with outside the law of this country. In each case the person who originally made the complaint to the Police was compelled (by the Sharia Court) to withdraw it.

So given that Sharia Courts in the UK are placing themselves above criminal law in the UK are you going to fight against it as you have just said you will?

Sorry - I missed this from the newspaper breifings. I obvisouly didn't read closely enough. Where were these cases? Why have the police not investigated? Why are our police force not following this up. After all, as I am sure you are aware, the law was changed so that the person who is the subject of domestic violence does not have to make a complaint any more.

Therefore give me the details, and I will make that complaint to the local police force and have it investigated.

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

1) In many cases with spouses or even entire families coming from abroad they are past the school leaving age & illiterate even in their native languages let alone English. They live in highly patriarchal societies where the family's actions are controlled for them.

2) Well done on getting out. However if this happened in the UK you were not cast out by your entire family & community (in a nation where you could not speak the language) as a result of your actions, were you?

You were not condemned to death for apostasy, having been deemed to have left your faith by leaving the relationship, were you? These things do happen.

What we are trying to tell you is that the system is unlikely to be voluntary for some of the most vulnerable people in society.

1) This is therefore, still, a weakness of education. Who says that we should not apply education to people entering the country?

2) But my friend did, and was, and is still under a death threat from her hindu family. So it is possible. Fcuking difficult, but possible. Therefore, it remains voluntary.

Originally Posted by rampant

Edited for brevity

The lines are firmly entrenched now, and I'm staying with my Beth Din model; based upon historical precedent and proven worth. I also reaffirm my argumnet for better education of British Imams for a British Islam, not the the Hangover Islam of the Tribal Areas that Hasan is calling for.

The trouble here is you are saying you would be happy with Sharia Courts operating in a similar vein to Beth Din. Obvioulsy this would be more or less acceptable to our culture.
Where this falls down is that it is not what the Islamic Sharia Council or the Muslim Council of Britain want. There desire is simple, Sharia Law administered by them. They have gone as far as actually practising this in their own courts in matters of criminal law yet we still labour under the illusion we can create a mutually acceptable watered down version of Sharia.
They are already running their own legal system, they do not want our watered down version of their law. They simply want us to accept their right to create and live under their own law.
They are already doing it after all.

Originally Posted by Bazzinho1977

Originally Posted by jagman

No they do not Bazzihno.
There are already documented cases of Sharia Courts in the UK trying criminal cases.
At least 6 cases of domestic violence have bee addressed in Sharia Courts. These are criminal offences being dealt with outside the law of this country. In each case the person who originally made the complaint to the Police was compelled (by the Sharia Court) to withdraw it.

So given that Sharia Courts in the UK are placing themselves above criminal law in the UK are you going to fight against it as you have just said you will?

Sorry - I missed this from the newspaper breifings. I obvisouly didn't read closely enough. Where were these cases? Why have the police not investigated? Why are our police force not following this up. After all, as I am sure you are aware, the law was changed so that the person who is the subject of domestic violence does not have to make a complaint any more.

Therefore give me the details, and I will make that complaint to the local police force and have it investigated.

The whole article is of relevance but the snippet about domestic violence is in the fouth paragraph from the bottom.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4749183.ece

I'm sure you will agree The Times is a reputably source, the Daily Mail ran a similar article but there is often sceptesism about article in the Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...y-binding.html

The Spactators take on it-


http://www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpo...he-times.thtml
According to The Times, the Home Office has given the nod for this activity to take place. The Conservative's say it is illegal.

Originally Posted by jagman

...you would be happy with Sharia Courts operating in a similar vein to Beth Din. Obvioulsy this would be more or less acceptable to our culture.
Where this falls down is that it is not what the Islamic Sharia Council or the Muslim Council of Britain want. There desire is simple, Sharia Law administered by them. They have gone as far as actually practising this in their own courts in matters of criminal law yet we still labour under the illusion we can create a mutually acceptable watered down version of Sharia.
They are already running their own legal system, they do not want our watered down version of their law. They simply want us to accept their right to create and live under their own law.
...

There's the rub, I believe that it easier for them do do this as they are operating outside the borders of our current legislation, and, indeed, gives impetus to the argument that it needs to be brought into the system in order for it to be better monitored and controlled. This in turn should be coupled with better training and education.

None of us want full on Sharia, that is unacceptable, and it is something that we both agree on. Moreover the current situation we find ourselves is one of confused boundaries. But how do we change that:

a straight rejection of all Sharia, which would further the alienation of Muslims in this country, and drive Sharia practice underground where it will be far harder to police and protect the endangered.

or the Beth Din Model, which may or may not be a wedge (I firmly believe not) for further expansion of Sharia's remit. But would be a recogniton of the positive roles that Muslims can play within society, and bringing it in line with the current legislation as it applies to other faiths?

Your argument and concern with regards to the motivations of Hasan and others to expand their remit is justified though. It's just that I believe we are strong enough culturally to prevent that. Unofficial policing of the community via unaccetable laws and punishments (be it by Muslims, or former paramilitaries in Northern Ireland) is criminal.

By giving a clear remit to what is and is not acceptable, means that those on both sides of the divide know where they stand, how they will be treated, and what rights and routes they have recourse to should they find themselves in difficulty.

The situation we are in now is just a muddle.

Having said that could you fire me linkies with regard to the cases you mentioned above, they may or may not be beneficial to my argument, but I am curious about them.

Edit, you have superb. Bit slow on my part there.

Originally Posted by rampant

edited for brevity

a straight rejection of all Sharia, which would further the alienation of Muslims in this country, and drive Sharia practice underground where it will be far harder to police and protect the endangered.

or the Beth Din Model, which may or may not be a wedge (I firmly believe not) for further expansion of Sharia's remit. But would be a recogniton of the positive roles that Muslims can play within society, and bringing it in line with the current legislation as it applies to other faiths?

Your argument and concern with regards to the motivations of Hasan and others to expand their remit is justified though. It's just that I believe we are strong enough culturally to prevent that. Unofficial policing of the community via unaccetable laws and punishments (be it by Muslims, or former paramilitaries in Northern Ireland) is criminal.

By giving a clear remit to what is and is not acceptable, means that those on both sides of the divide know where they stand, how they will be treated, and what rights and routes they have recourse to should they find themselves in difficulty.

The situation we are in now is just a muddle.

Having said that could you fire me linkies with regard to the cases you mentioned above, they may or may not be beneficial to my argument, but I am curious about them.

Edit, you have superb. Bit slow on my part there.

Excuse me cutting sections out, they are clearly visible in your post above and it saves a bit of space.

I'm afraid nothing less than a straight rejection of any legal recognition of Sharia Law will do me. If that offends some of the Islamic community then I suggest those people are living in the wrong country anyway. Sharia is directly opposite to what being British means, we do not tolerate or accept many of the things Sharia advocate. It really is that simple.

There is no middle ground here, the Islamic Sharia Council wants Sharia Law. That simply is not compatable with the values and principles that make Britain what it is. Anyone who sishes to live by Sharia principles has no place here.
If we accept Sharia in any shape or form we are opening the door to the whole shebang. Sharia Courts are already trying criminal cases (illegaly), if we condone that then we tacitly accept that the purview of Sharia Courts will extend accordingly time and time again.
We are turning a blind eye to a cultural system that at best condones subjugating women and at worse quietly endorses honour killings.
We can say the majority of Muslims do not support this (which may or may not be true, I don't know) but the organisations promoting Islam in Britain are openly advocating and requesting full Sharia Law. We can either put a stop to that or we can fanny about trying to be liberal about it and allow it to continue. I can see no middle ground.

Originally Posted by jagman

Originally Posted by rampant

edited for brevity

a straight rejection of all Sharia, which would further the alienation of Muslims in this country, and drive Sharia practice underground where it will be far harder to police and protect the endangered.

or the Beth Din Model, which may or may not be a wedge (I firmly believe not) for further expansion of Sharia's remit. But would be a recogniton of the positive roles that Muslims can play within society, and bringing it in line with the current legislation as it applies to other faiths?

Your argument and concern with regards to the motivations of Hasan and others to expand their remit is justified though. It's just that I believe we are strong enough culturally to prevent that. Unofficial policing of the community via unaccetable laws and punishments (be it by Muslims, or former paramilitaries in Northern Ireland) is criminal.

By giving a clear remit to what is and is not acceptable, means that those on both sides of the divide know where they stand, how they will be treated, and what rights and routes they have recourse to should they find themselves in difficulty.

The situation we are in now is just a muddle.

Having said that could you fire me linkies with regard to the cases you mentioned above, they may or may not be beneficial to my argument, but I am curious about them.

Edit, you have superb. Bit slow on my part there.

Excuse me cutting sections out, they are clearly visible in your post above and it saves a bit of space.

I'm afraid nothing less than a straight rejection of any legal recognition of Sharia Law will do me. If that offends some of the Islamic community then I suggest those people are living in the wrong country anyway. Sharia is directly opposite to what being British means, we do not tolerate or accept many of the things Sharia advocate. It really is that simple.

There is no middle ground here, the Islamic Sharia Council wants Sharia Law. That simply is not compatable with the values and principles that make Britain what it is. Anyone who sishes to live by Shar cultural system that at best condones subjugating women and at worse quietly endorses honour killings.
We can say the majority of Muslims do not support this (which may or may not be true, I don't know) but the organisations promoting Islam in Britain are openly advocating and requesting full Sharia Law. We can either put a stop to that or we can fanny about trying to be liberal about it and allow it to continue. I can see no middle ground.

What jagman said!

[quote="jagman"]
We can say the majority of Muslims do not support this...quote]

Well let them stand up & say so.