Sharia Law In The Uk

[mortify]

[size=3][b]Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts[/b][/size]
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Abul Taher
[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece"][u]Link to article[/u][/url]

==QUOTE==

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

[color="#FF0000"][b]There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.[/b][/color]

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks

===ENDQUOTE===

[Madame Vengier]

Oh well. Elephant. Ignore.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Madame Vengier

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='mortify' post='1672792' date='Oct 8 2008, 02:01 PM'][size=3][b]Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts[/b][/size]
From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Abul Taher
[url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece"][u]Link to article[/u][/url]

==QUOTE==

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

[color="#FF0000"][b]There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.[/b][/color]

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks

===ENDQUOTE===[/quote]
I don't see an issue with allowing them to deal with their own issues. It's no different than Native American reservations being allowed to try their own cases and punish their people.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1672918' date='Oct 8 2008, 07:34 PM']I don't see an issue with allowing them to deal with their own issues. It's no different than Native American reservations being allowed to try their own cases and punish their people.[/quote]


It IS different... They aren't ethnically native to the UK. They have come and should submit themselves to the UK's rules. The Native Americans got jipped out of their own lands and should not have been forced to submit to the Europeans. The least we could have done is allow them to rule the lands we DID give to them.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1672921' date='Oct 8 2008, 07:44 PM']It IS different... They aren't ethnically native to the UK. They have come and should submit themselves to the UK's rules. The Native Americans got jipped out of their own lands and should not have been forced to submit to the Europeans. The least we could have done is allow them to rule the lands we DID give to them.[/quote]


Not to mention, the Native American Indians aren't trying to stone people for adultery or allow 50 year old men to marry 9 year old girls.

Some of you have noooooooooooooooooooooo idea what Islam, Islamic culture and Islamic law are all about. Comparing it to Native Americans!?!?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1672927' date='Oct 8 2008, 05:57 PM']Not to mention, the Native American Indians aren't trying to stone people for adultery or allow 50 year old men to marry 9 year old girls.

Some of you have noooooooooooooooooooooo idea what Islam, Islamic culture and Islamic law are all about. Comparing it to Native Americans!?!?[/quote]
No, some of us just don't hate them.

[Hassan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1672921' date='Oct 8 2008, 06:44 PM']It IS different... They aren't ethnically native to the UK. They have come and should submit themselves to the UK's rules. The Native Americans got jipped out of their own lands and should not have been forced to submit to the Europeans. The least we could have done is allow them to rule the lands we DID give to them.[/quote]


Neither were the Jewish communities.

As to the wider issue.

I have no problem with this so long as both parties agrea to go through Sharia courts.

The problem is, of course, how to verify that both parties entered into the alternate legal system willingly. Tha advantage of a single legal system is that all parties have equal recourse to the same remedies. Although family pressure can coerce anyone to not pursue legal solutions.

These same problems, however, exist in the Jewish courts. It is unfair to single out the Muslim courts as somehow sinister if you do not attack the Jewish courts as well.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1672927' date='Oct 8 2008, 06:57 PM']Not to mention, the Native American Indians aren't trying to stone people for adultery or allow 50 year old men to marry 9 year old girls.[/quote]


Do you understand that no all Muslims are trying to do this? Or that UK law would not allow these practices.

The fact that you object so violently to this but not to the Jewish courts says a lot.

[quote]Some of you have noooooooooooooooooooooo idea what Islam, Islamic culture and Islamic law are all about. Comparing it to Native Americans!?!?[/quote]

What exactly are your studies in this area?

Should I deduct from this statement that you have studied and mastered all four schools are Islamic Law?

[mortify]

I personally don't have a problem with placing restrictions on Muslims. For one I feel allowing them to follow their own laws only reinforces the cultural divide that exists in Europe and its Muslim population. Furthermore, I find the Muslim presence to be more threatening. Ultimately history will tell.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1673058' date='Oct 8 2008, 09:34 PM']I personally don't have a problem with placing restrictions on Muslims. For one I feel allowing them to follow their own laws only reinforces the cultural divide that exists in Europe and its Muslim population. Furthermore, I find the Muslim presence to be more threatening. Ultimately history will tell.[/quote]


I'd prefer to have only one legal system. If they are going to allow it for Jews, however, it is absurd to get up in arms if the Muslims ask for the same right.

A legal system will not, in itself, cause the Muslim communities to be isolated. If Muslims continue to feel like second class citizens and rejected this will not help things.

The Economist recently ran an interesting article on the upsurge of far right politics in Europe. Europe is seeing a resurgence of anti-semitism and anti-Muslim bigotry.

I suspect that things will get much worse before they get better. The important thing is to approach the problem rationally rather than following the Robert Spencer path of bigotry, paranoia, and blatant stupidity.

Muslims have their respective responsibilities as well, however as I am talking to Catholics and not Muslims I don't think that is important for now.

[Archaeology cat]

I definitely think there should be one legal system. I mean, part of moving to another country (or even visiting another country) is agreeing to submit to their laws.

I didn't realise there were Jewish courts here as well, so I can understand the argument. I don't like it, but I can see how they could use that as justification. As I said, I think all should be under one legal system instead of having their own courts.

[misereremi]

A Shariah ‘court’ structure for the civil law issues that Muslims are dealing with is actually not necessary in Islam anyway. Muslims can go about Niqah, Talaq, and mahar etc. issues without having recourse to a Shariah court. If they want to take it to a court and they happen to live in a Non-Muslim country, Muslims can go to the court of the land, i.e. the UK court. I thought this is basic Islam 101. A legal structure is totally unnecessary when they can go through the already existent age-old voluntary arbitration **which exists for everybody Muslim and non-Muslim**.

I’m not worried about how it will affect the average Muslim’s affairs, but I am very concerned about how it can isolate and endanger the vulnerable (many women and girls don’t even know their rights under common law), and give a licence for the more fundamentalist factions to take the extra yard- e.g. protesting if a shariah decision is overturned by a common law court. Even if only some elements of Shariah are permissible to Muslims in the UK, many people will -and do- abuse this. Even in the existent tribunals, I have seen my friends’ marriages wrecked, with imams giving their spouses what is basically a licence to commit adultery/rape them/beat them/take their children away. And I’ve seen how different ‘tribunals’ come with different interpretations, nobody agrees on what Shariah is, some have softer interpretations, others very harsh. How they will decide on one interpretation is a mission. It will be a headache for our legal and criminal justice systems sorting out Shariah cases gone wrong. Not to mention the widening gap that it will create between all sorts of communities that are just trying to get along. I don’t see any positives. Time will tell indeed.

[Hassan]

[quote name='misereremi' post='1673248' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:58 AM']A Shariah ‘court’ structure for the civil law issues that Muslims are dealing with is actually not necessary in Islam anyway. Muslims can go about Niqah, Talaq, and mahar etc. issues without having recourse to a Shariah court. If they want to take it to a court and they happen to live in a Non-Muslim country, Muslims can go to the court of the land, i.e. the UK court. I thought this is basic Islam 101. A legal structure is totally unnecessary when they can go through the already existent age-old voluntary arbitration **which exists for everybody Muslim and non-Muslim**.

I’m not worried about how it will affect the average Muslim’s affairs, but I am very concerned about how it can isolate and endanger the vulnerable (many women and girls don’t even know their rights under common law), and give a licence for the more fundamentalist factions to take the extra yard- e.g. protesting if a shariah decision is overturned by a common law court. Even if only some elements of Shariah are permissible to Muslims in the UK, many people will -and do- abuse this. Even in the existent tribunals, I have seen my friends’ marriages wrecked, with imams giving their spouses what is basically a licence to commit adultery/rape them/beat them/take their children away. And I’ve seen how different ‘tribunals’ come with different interpretations, nobody agrees on what Shariah is, some have softer interpretations, others very harsh. How they will decide on one interpretation is a mission. It will be a headache for our legal and criminal justice systems sorting out Shariah cases gone wrong. Not to mention the widening gap that it will create between all sorts of communities that are just trying to get along. I don’t see any positives. Time will tell indeed.[/quote]

Exactly, very well put.


As you live in the UK, do you have any insight on the Jewish Courts? Do you know how they have managed through the times.

[Hassan]

[quote name='misereremi' post='1673248' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:58 AM']A Shariah ‘court’ structure for the civil law issues that Muslims are dealing with is actually not necessary in Islam anyway. Muslims can go about Niqah, Talaq, and mahar etc. issues without having recourse to a Shariah court. If they want to take it to a court and they happen to live in a Non-Muslim country, Muslims can go to the court of the land, i.e. the UK court. I thought this is basic Islam 101. A legal structure is totally unnecessary when they can go through the already existent age-old voluntary arbitration **which exists for everybody Muslim and non-Muslim**.

I’m not worried about how it will affect the average Muslim’s affairs, but I am very concerned about how it can isolate and endanger the vulnerable (many women and girls don’t even know their rights under common law), and give a licence for the more fundamentalist factions to take the extra yard- e.g. protesting if a shariah decision is overturned by a common law court. Even if only some elements of Shariah are permissible to Muslims in the UK, many people will -and do- abuse this. Even in the existent tribunals, I have seen my friends’ marriages wrecked, with imams giving their spouses what is basically a licence to commit adultery/rape them/beat them/take their children away. And I’ve seen how different ‘tribunals’ come with different interpretations, nobody agrees on what Shariah is, some have softer interpretations, others very harsh. How they will decide on one interpretation is a mission. It will be a headache for our legal and criminal justice systems sorting out Shariah cases gone wrong. Not to mention the widening gap that it will create between all sorts of communities that are just trying to get along. I don’t see any positives. Time will tell indeed.[/quote]

I think what should also be noted is that the British Muslim population is, so far as I know, largely Pakistani. Now there are some wonderfull trends comeing out of Indian/Pakistani Islamic thought (particularly in the 20th century) however there are also a great many problems, particulalry with tribal custom being infused with Sharia and very conservative and rough lines of thought in their understanding of Sharia.

I think you his the nail on the head with arbitration.

Again, I don't have a problem with Sharia necessairly, if a Muslim husband and wife wish to have their divorce settled through Sharia I don't see any problem, particulalry as other groups have simmilar rights, the problem is that there is such much pooertunity for abuse and further insulating the Muslim communities in GB.

I saw an Islamic Scholar from the Sudan absolutly rip this idea up a while ago, if I can find that I'll post it (Ironically he was argueing with Noah Fieldman who was defending the idea).

[cmotherofpirl]

I think the thing that riles people most is that this simply continues and fosters the seperatism that already exists. When you move to a foreign country, you accept [u]their[/u] way of life, and that includes their legal system. If you don't like it, don't move there. This will not foster peace, but simply further divide the nation.