Sharia law in Britain

Originally posted by Panther http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/09/sharia_law_in_b.html   Sharia law in Britain Johnathan Pearce (London)  Middle East & Islamic • UK affairs Once the financial markets have hopefully calmed down, this development is likely to gain much greater significance: Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims. What has been predicted has come to pass. As I discussed on a previous post while attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury and a senior UK judge on the matter, this move undermines the core principle of a free society, namely, that all are equal under the rule of law, and that a polycentric legl code, while fine in theory, tends to be unacceptable in practice if some people, such as Muslim women, are at risk of being coerced by their families into submitting to such courts. Given that in matrimonial disputes, men are favoured over women under Muslim law, this development is bad for women. Now, where is the chorus of complaint from feminists? The article continues: 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. In tandem? 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. That has to be the crucial point, but the worry must be that women, for example, will face considerable pressure in marital disputes to submit - that is what Islam means - to sharia law. The whole point about everyone being under the same legal code is that pressure is at least lessened somewhat. This comment was telling: 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. Well, exactly. Now that the Tories are miles ahead in the opinion polls, it would not be too much to ask for a future Tory administration to shut these courts down if it can be shown that parties to a dispute had been under any duress to accept them in the first place. Also, where children are involved and therefore the child is clearly not able to consent, such rulings should be declared inadmissable, period. The same point would apply to any other network of courts or arbitrators from any other religion, for that matter. For example, as far as I understand it, Jewish courts do not have binding powers if they are at odds with the existing UK ones. At the very least, this development plays straight into the hands of bigots of all stripes, including the Far Right, of course. Equality before the law may sometimes be an empty phrase, but it touches on a vital principle in jurispudence in a free society. Hmmm... An established law system within a country vs. the possibility of the birth & rise of a new (that is... a non-regional and slightly  older one) within a democratic state? This raises a whole new set of questions for Europeans and Americans too contemplate, if not already being done; Not to get panicky about, but certainly something too watch, think & discuss with others about as this continues too unfold over time!    But, "IF" this is indeed what is happening, the replacemnt of one law with another, then i don't see a peaceful future in store for the UK? I'm not saying this too spread fear or inspire ignorant hatred; But i recall reading, that the last time the US experimented with two systems of legal governance (That is with only a few distintive differences between the two sets of belief!) within her borders, the end result was the needless death of over one million US citizens!   I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping this becomes a nonissue!

I get the point about Muslims having their own courts to deal with minor family related issues as well some other meager affairs but still they should be subservient to the secular British Courts and to say that they are gaining power is to say the least troubling, especially that in my opinion it is not good for religious courts of any kind to have any legal power in any Western Democracy.  

It's a court for religious issues that wouldn't have been dealt with by the regular legal system anyway. Of course that doesn't mean I support it; no enlightened country has need of religious courts.

But how is that different from Sharia courts...

I think we have a religious court for the Muslim minority in Thrace. They decide on divorce and will disputes mainly.

We have some problems with the fact that the Greek government appoints the "judge" (mufti) but some elect their own, which is illegal


Edited by Vorian - 22-Sep-2008 at 04:33

Yes, in British law it is perfectly legal to have whatever form of arbitration you like to settle disputes, and providing all parties are in agreement then that his fine.

Being the lawyer here, I would like to add that to add that most of the best decisions in Islamic Law over the last two hundred years have come from English judges, from both colonial judges and the Privy Council which heard appeals from the colonies. Refer Ballies Digest of Muhammadan Law. All they'll have to do is open up the old law reports.

Originally posted by Majkes This is just arbitration. If both Parties agree to choose one legal system than I don't see any problem. It only concerns familly matters if I remember so thieves won't have their hand cut.

I am not against it as long as it is not legally binding and it stays within their religious community under the guidance of state and federal constitutional law. I consider it freedom of religion but I agree with the efforts of Tom Tancredo so that is never becomes legally binding in the USA, like in the UK. I have a link from a Muslim group below who support Tancredo as well but this computer will not allow me to link it.
added
Tom Tancredo in the below article wants to push a law through the U.S. Congress a measure to keep sharia law courts out of the USA like what is happening in the U.K. For most Americans the Bill or Rights and US constition is sacred and if immigrants want to come here fine but when in Rome do as the Romans do. I do not care if some have an opinion and support sharia law but anyone who promotes it, like in Tancredo's bill, they should face deportation. If a German came over and promoted a Nazi agenda or any group then I feel the same about them. I posted a muslim group's web site who support this measure by Tom Tancredo and to show I have not come down with a case of Islomophobia. I suggest if you are a US citizen then send an email to your congressman/women and let them know if you support Tom Tancredo on this measure. I called his office and I emailed my Congress women Cathy McMorris. I agree with Tom Tancredo in his ending comment, If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.” This applies to any group or religion who does not respect our laws and wants to override them.



Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Measure in Wake of U.K. Certification of Islamic Courts

Jihad Prevention Act” would deny U.S. visas to advocates of ‘Sharia’ law, expel Islamists already here

WASHINGTON, DC – Amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in civil cases in the United Kingdom, U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Littleton) moved quickly today to introduce legislation designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

According to recent news reports, a new network of Sharia courts in a half-dozen major cities in the U.K. have been empowered under British law to adjudicate a wide variety of legal cases ranging from divorces and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

“This is a case where truth is truly stranger than fiction,” said Tancredo. “Today the British people are learning a hard lesson about the consequences of massive, unrestricted immigration.”

Sharia law, favored by Muslim extremists around the world, often calls for brutal punishment – such as the stoning of women who are accused of adultery or have children out of wedlock, cutting off the hands of petty thieves and lashings for the casual consumption of alcohol. Under Sharia law, a woman is often required to provide numerous witnesses to prove rape allegations against an assailant – a near impossible task.

“When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of radical Muslims, you are also importing their radical ideology – an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy – such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberty,” said Tancredo. “The best way to safeguard America against the importation of the destructive effects of this poisonous ideology is to prevent its purveyors from coming here in the first place.”

Tancredo’s bill, dubbed the “Jihad Prevention Act,” would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate Sharia law. In addition, the legislation would make the advocacy of Sharia law by radical Muslims already in the United States a deportable offense.

Tancredo pointed to the results of a recent poll conducted by the Centre for Social Cohesion as evidence that the U.S. should act to prevent the situation in Great Britain from replicating itself here in the United States. The poll found that some 40 percent of Muslim students in the United Kingdom support the introduction of Sharia law there, and 33 percent support the imposition of an Islamic Sharia-based government worldwide.

“We need to send a clear message that the only law we recognize here in America is the U.S. Constitution and the laws passed by our democratically elected representatives,” concluded Tancredo. “If you aren’t comfortable with that concept, you aren’t welcome in the United States.”

Source: Border Fire Report
H/T: Shariah Finance Watch
Hon.

fixed on another computer

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/09/tancredo-proposes-anti-sharia-measure.html

Original Source form Border Fire Report -author unknown
http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/tancredo-proposes-anti-sharia-measure-in-wake-of-u.k.-certification-of-islamic-courts.html

Edited by eaglecap - 23-Sep-2008 at 22:13

eaglecap,

Originally posted by Cryptic Originally posted by Kevin   in my opinion it is not good for religious courts of any kind to have any legal power in any Western Democracy.   I agree, Britian seems to be an example of political correctness gone haywire.  Seperate religous courts are but one aspect of emerging seperate societies with in one "nation".  The British governemnt also funds seperate religously oriented "public" schools.  What is next, seperate police forces for areas dominated by one ethnic group or another?     Human being have alot of tribal instincts. If the nation does not offer a group identity, people are going to seek it out amongst smaller social units. As the article mentioned, eventual conflict is a real possibility.

I noticed alot of that while I was over there.

Btw the British don't seem as patriotic as we Americans do.