Sharia law in the UK

[shadowmaster]

You have seen the leaflets so you will know what they contain. You dismiss them as rubbish produced by a couple of nutters. Actually these were well printed leaflets distributed by a large group of people who claim to be Muslim. It is just the sort of hate printed in those leaflets which help to create the anti-Muslim feeling in this country. Rubbish it most certainly is, but dangerous rubbish nevertheless.

My post at no point indicates that I believe these people represent the majority of Muslims in this country - actually I pointed out that this type of behaviour does no service to Muslims who wish to live peacefully and that is my view.

I wasn't in particular referring to you or anyone else as being deluded, it was just a general comment. I agree it is certainly dangerous stuff, especially when young minds read it. Unfortunately as you correctly said it does little favour to those peaceful Muslims living in this country.

[Amalie]

Thank you for clarifying your earlier post Shadowmaster, we appear to be in agreeement.

[iranu]

I would suggest some of you choose a better brand of newspaper. Seriously.

English Law allows for 2 people or parties to settle disputes amicably through a third party if they wish to do so voluntarily. It saves court time, lawyer expenses and is just well.. quicker in a lot of cases. If a citizen within England wishes to take up there rights afforded to them by the law and asks for this they are not breaking any laws of the country.

Lastly, this will not be for criminal cases. So it will not affect anyone. (includes those calling themselves muslim). So those examples of violence etc don't count.

I suggest you improve your reading comprehension as well as bother to read the thread from the start. I, as well as others, understand fully, the difference between arbitration between parties who freely bind themselves to the decision (in this case) of courts/tribunals/panels set up by Muslims for their own religious community and Sharia Law.

There are two main arguments in this thread which have nuances. Firstly, as you state, the right for individuals to seek arbitration that both parties agree upon. No-one here is arguing otherwise and no-one is unaware of the savings made with regard to court time and tax-payer's money. However, some of us are pointing out the fact that in any system that allows "self" arbitration the parties involved must be completely self willing and not coerced in any way shape or form. This goes for any form of self arbitration whether religious or otherwise.

It is here that I and others believe that there is a problem. I am sure that the problem is not constrained to Muslims as other faiths have their own "courts" as would anyone else under a non-religious court, but bound within the same Acts that the Law accords, however, Muslim women are particularly vulnerable.

The problem is one of coercion. What are the guarantees that people who have submitted to these decrees have done so under their own volition without individual or social coercion be it, threat of violence upon the individual or another punishment such as ostracization or intimidation? Do not underestimate the power of peer pressure or social conformity.

When people argue that the Beth Din is a reason for "Muslim arbitration" one does so on the grounds simply of legality and historicity in terms or parity, but without likeness.

We must realise that people of Jewish decent/persuasion/religion have been in Britain for around 1000 years and that this has allowed a mature system to grow to the state it is today. I would expect that such arbitration has been refined and therefore a ruling in one part of the country will be matched by another, however I do not know if this is exact nor whether there is a sufficient structure to show and allow precedent or any other mechanism that would be parallel in English law. However, that does not mean to say that there is not coercion or social pressure within Jewish communities to settle their civil differences within such courts. Again I'll reiterate that this is not an issue purely regarding Muslims but an issue regarding anyone who "chooses" to go through these courts.

A nuance to religious courts and in this case, specifically Muslims, is the fact that in the current climate the Police, according to the report, seem to regard domestic violence as a preserve of the arbitration system rather than a criminal offence. I have no idea what the procedure would be with regards non-muslims but it appears that a softly, softly, let-them-take-care-of-it approach has been made. This is not good because it sets a precedent. Domestic violence is not a civil offence, it's criminal and therefore does not fall under the powers of such a tribunal. Again, given what we know about domestic violence and abuse in general, it is not reassuring that such crimes seem not to call upon the full powers of the law. If anyone has professional experience please shed light on domestic violence and how it is handled by the Police/CPS etc. I's sure it's not black and white.

Secondly with regards Sharia Law (which isn't what these tribunals are using but the same texts are used as a guide) - What is it? Well there just isn't an agreed codification. One country or indeed region within a country can produce different interpretations. How do "we" in Britain define exactly what Sharia Law is? How do ALL Muslims agree upon such a definition bearing in mind the vast difference in backgrounds and traditions of, not only, those that have immigrated to the UK, but of their descendants? Who decides what is or isn't Sharia Law? Again we have the huge problem of religious interpretation not only within small hereditary communities, but also nationals and their own social boundaries. These interpretations not only conflict with the laws that have been nurtured and refined within the population of Britain throughout the ages, but also with "fellow" Muslims from other parts of the world and their subsequent cultures. Therefore the argument is on going, but also imho moot. It's moot with regards Sharia Law, but it's not with regard to arbitration. There must be a standard with regard to arbitration throughout Britain. This is also a concern and must be addressed without fear in a "PC" climate because we cannot have different rulings on similar cases depending upon the area or background within which the participants live. Continuity within law is everything.

Those here that scream "stop reading the "Scum" (Sun), read a decent newspaper!, simply miss that those of us who do comment have a good understanding of the arguments and hence the debate.

The reason I posted those photographs is to show the (extreme) consequences of, what I, and I'm sure other people whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew, Pastafarian, consider to be unacceptable in the UK in response to 360Bhp's comment (to paraphrase) "that if "Sharia Law" were the law of the land then the problems he indicates would be resolved". If 360Bhp thinks otherwise then he should clarify his statements. There is a huge difference between "Sharia Law" and arbitration within this context. It seems 360bhp will shout from the rooftops about Sharia courts but does not understand the distinction. Don't let newspapers (even reputable ones), with their distorted headlines fool you unless you do espouse Sharia Law and if you do please clarify what you mean.

This is not an attack on Muslims in Britain, or British Muslims, nor arbitration outside of the courts, however, my post is asking for clarification. As an aside I'll state my position that I believe that this state of affairs would not come about if the law didn't allow such tribunals regardless of third parties, or whether a greater or lesser expense to the tax payer occurred.

Sorry for the long post, I'll look at the rest of the comments after PP05 and post if I feel the need.

[Betty_Swallocks]

Putting aside the issue of the voluntary nature of these tribunals and the matter of coersion the main thing I object to is this.

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.

There's no way that findings of a tribunal should be backed up by the judicial system. Neither the sharia courts nor the Beth Din.

If people want to relieve the court system of the burden of family and community disputes that's fine. But the idea of the courts then being used to enforce the decisions of a community tribunal is totally wrong.

I personally have no problem with these tribunals existing. They just shouldn't be able to piggyback on our system without the checks and balances that the British law has.

[pp05]

I suggest you improve your reading comprehension as well as bother to read the thread from the start. I, as well as others, understand fully, the difference between arbitration between parties who freely bind themselves to the decision (in this case) of courts/tribunals/panels set up by Muslims for their own religious community and Sharia Law.

There are two main arguments in this thread which have nuances. Firstly, as you state, the right for individuals to seek arbitration that both parties agree upon. No-one here is arguing otherwise and no-one is unaware of the savings made with regard to court time and tax-payer's money. However, some of us are pointing out the fact that in any system that allows "self" arbitration the parties involved must be completely self willing and not coerced in any way shape or form. This goes for any form of self arbitration whether religious or otherwise.

It is here that I and others believe that there is a problem. I am sure that the problem is not constrained to Muslims as other faiths have their own "courts" as would anyone else under a non-religious court, but bound within the same Acts that the Law accords, however, Muslim women are particularly vulnerable.

The problem is one of coercion. What are the guarantees that people who have submitted to these decrees have done so under their own volition without individual or social coercion be it, threat of violence upon the individual or another punishment such as ostracization or intimidation? Do not underestimate the power of peer pressure or social conformity.

When people argue that the Beth Din is a reason for "Muslim arbitration" one does so on the grounds simply of legality and historicity in terms or parity, but without likeness.

We must realise that people of Jewish decent/persuasion/religion have been in Britain for around 1000 years and that this has allowed a mature system to grow to the state it is today. I would expect that such arbitration has been refined and therefore a ruling in one part of the country will be matched by another, however I do not know if this is exact nor whether there is a sufficient structure to show and allow precedent or any other mechanism that would be parallel in English law. However, that does not mean to say that there is not coercion or social pressure within Jewish communities to settle their civil differences within such courts. Again I'll reiterate that this is not an issue purely regarding Muslims but an issue regarding anyone who "chooses" to go through these courts.

A nuance to religious courts and in this case, specifically Muslims, is the fact that in the current climate the Police, according to the report, seem to regard domestic violence as a preserve of the arbitration system rather than a criminal offence. I have no idea what the procedure would be with regards non-muslims but it appears that a softly, softly, let-them-take-care-of-it approach has been made. This is not good because it sets a precedent. Domestic violence is not a civil offence, it's criminal and therefore does not fall under the powers of such a tribunal. Again, given what we know about domestic violence and abuse in general, it is not reassuring that such crimes seem not to call upon the full powers of the law. If anyone has professional experience please shed light on domestic violence and how it is handled by the Police/CPS etc. I's sure it's not black and white.

Secondly with regards Sharia Law (which isn't what these tribunals are using but the same texts are used as a guide) - What is it? Well there just isn't an agreed codification. One country or indeed region within a country can produce different interpretations. How do "we" in Britain define exactly what Sharia Law is? How do ALL Muslims agree upon such a definition bearing in mind the vast difference in backgrounds and traditions of, not only, those that have immigrated to the UK, but of their descendants? Who decides what is or isn't Sharia Law? Again we have the huge problem of religious interpretation not only within small hereditary communities, but also nationals and their own social boundaries. These interpretations not only conflict with the laws that have been nurtured and refined within the population of Britain throughout the ages, but also with "fellow" Muslims from other parts of the world and their subsequent cultures. Therefore the argument is on going, but also imho moot. It's moot with regards Sharia Law, but it's not with regard to arbitration. There must be a standard with regard to arbitration throughout Britain. This is also a concern and must be addressed without fear in a "PC" climate because we cannot have different rulings on similar cases depending upon the area or background within which the participants live. Continuity within law is everything.

Those here that scream "stop reading the "Scum" (Sun), read a decent newspaper!, simply miss that those of us who do comment have a good understanding of the arguments and hence the debate.

The reason I posted those photographs is to show the (extreme) consequences of, what I, and I'm sure other people whether they be Muslim, Christian, Jew, Pastafarian, consider to be unacceptable in the UK in response to 360Bhp's comment (to paraphrase) "that if "Sharia Law" were the law of the land then the problems he indicates would be resolved". If 360Bhp thinks otherwise then he should clarify his statements. There is a huge difference between "Sharia Law" and arbitration within this context. It seems 360bhp will shout from the rooftops about Sharia courts but does not understand the distinction. Don't let newspapers (even reputable ones), with their distorted headlines fool you unless you do espouse Sharia Law and if you do please clarify what you mean.

This is not an attack on Muslims in Britain, or British Muslims, nor arbitration outside of the courts, however, my post is asking for clarification. As an aside I'll state my position that I believe that this state of affairs would not come about if the law didn't allow such tribunals regardless of third parties, or whether a greater or lesser expense to the tax payer occurred.

Sorry for the long post, I'll look at the rest of the comments after PP05 and post if I feel the need.

Iranu that was a long post.

You rightly point out that arbitration is nothing new in this country then why was Sharia singled out in the way it has been? Because the daily mail said so? Because it’s a political slogan presently? Why have some people gone against other law abiding citizen a right to legal avenue just because it’s called Sharia? rather than something that can provide practical solutions to citizens of this country it they should choose to do so?

One thing iranu you and the rest of us opposing it must understand is it is not the end of the discussion – this is the beginning and it’s important to recognise this. If we don’t like it we can always petition a change in the law against religious based arbitration. That is how it is supposed to work in democracy.

I will at least credit you to have put it into context when you pointed out the jewish have been in Britain longer, therefore beth din has been around for 100s of years and improved incrementally along the way so that their rulings have assimilated better with our laws and been consistent with it’s spirit. Sharia based arbitration I believe will have to go through the same trial-error phase. The effect of this would be more investment into scholarship in this area which will in the long run see better integration. But it’s only just starting. This is a vital distinction.

Coercion is a big thing on this thread and rightly so. I completely understand this and think there should be checks in place to make sure this kind of abuse doesn’t happen. Example: I’ve only heard of one case where a guy and a woman went to these places to get marriage signed. The person (conducting ceremony) took the woman to one room and asked her privately whether she was coerced and any questions she might have. She replied yes that she had been and he did not conduct the ceremony. That was just to witness a marriage contract - So I don’t assume for a minute that those who run these panels are completely oblivious to the challenges/concerns of people in their running.

My view is personally – if the need for this type of tribunal is there and people are within their rights to use them then I don’t in principle have a problem with it. However, because it’s a fairly new to the public (including muslims), and there are concerns on transparency I would like to see a gradual introduction of it but not on criminal matters ever. Possibly with lawyers overseeing it initially, so that if they find abuse they can suspend them pending improvements they suggest. This way we can retain some control and make sure that those parties who use them can feel that they will be treated fairly. The other thing I think would be good is if full human right legislation applied to this tribunal to deal with any structural discrimination in their operation. I just want to see a common sense approach to this, not one dictated by sensationalist headlines and fear mongering.

But my question is this: Is Coercion the main issue here? and if it was dealt with in a satisfactorily way would you still be against people voluntarily seeking these courts for their disputes?

[Amalie]

Did anyone else see this in the press today?

Sharia Law “not fit for UK” says Muslim MP.

Sadiq Khan said women could be “abused” by Sharia courts which may give unequal bargaining power to the sexes.

He said “The burden is on those who want to open up these courts to persuade us why they should”.

Mr Khan, who was made a community cohesion minister in this month’s Government reshuffle, rejected the argument that the courts could cooperate in the same way as the Jewish Beth Din courts.

He said Muslim life in Britain was not advanced enough to run a similar religious legal system.

The MP for Tooting in South London added: “I would be very concerned about Sharia courts applying in the UK. I don’t think there is that level of sophistication that there is in the Jewish law”. He also said that Sharia courts would discourage Muslims from developing links with other cultural and ethnic groups.

[fuddam]

wow. that's quite a statement........

[iranu]

Iranu that was a long post.

I know I tried to keep it short.

But my question is this: Is Coercion the main issue here? and if it was dealt with in a satisfactorily way would you still be against people voluntarily seeking these courts for their disputes?

Coercion for me is the biggest factor and I think if this was dealt with and shown to be dealt with then I can't see any problem. The wishes of two parties to be dealt with by an arbitration process is enshrined in law. However, I believe as does the MP that, Islam as it stands in the UK and those that practice it, have not reached a maturity that warrants self arbitration or if these courts are allowed to proceed then they must be strictly monitored so that they do not encroach upon criminal law or act unlawfully. I am fully aware that that statement is a generalisation and it will attract flak but there you go. In time, like the Beth Din then they would become normalised and standardised and we wouldn't think anything of it.

The big problem is we have a serious problem with Islamisists in this country and they tend to be very vocal and influential. Even so called moderate mosques have been shown to preach hatred and stock inflammatory material that is not conducive to an integrated society so we must be wary of any additional areas whereby these people can gain influence further dividing society.

As far as religious tribunals go I'd like to see them ended because I favour a secular system that would protect everyone equally.

[pp05]

I know I tried to keep it short.

Coercion for me is the biggest factor and I think if this was dealt with and shown to be dealt with then I can't see any problem. The wishes of two parties to be dealt with by an arbitration process is enshrined in law. However, I believe as does the MP that, Islam as it stands in the UK and those that practice it, have not reached a maturity that warrants self arbitration or if these courts are allowed to proceed then they must be strictly monitored so that they do not encroach upon criminal law or act unlawfully. I am fully aware that that statement is a generalisation and it will attract flak but there you go. In time, like the Beth Din then they would become normalised and standardised and we wouldn't think anything of it.

The big problem is we have a serious problem with Islamisists in this country and they tend to be very vocal and influential. Even so called moderate mosques have been shown to preach hatred and stock inflammatory material that is not conducive to an integrated society so we must be wary of any additional areas whereby these people can gain influence further dividing society.

As far as religious tribunals go I'd like to see them ended because I favour a secular system that would protect everyone equally.

Fair enough. I can respect that iranu. Who knows, if not done so already - beth din can cooperate and open up their shop and share their expertise in setting up these panels. Sadiq's sentiment I can understand. However the less interference from the state in peoples lives the better I think.

We have a problem with a minority that we have labelled 'islamists' if indeed they are so. I don't think religion has nothing to do with it. Their agenda seems to mirror that of the neo-cons vision and religion bit has been added at the end as an after thought.

But again, minority. We are maybe talking <1000 criminals if that up and down the country with armchair fantasy's. Not a big enough number to warrant 42 days without trial. Not big enough to curb the civil liberties of the remaining 50+ millions people - most of whom are just getting on with life.