Sharia Law taking precedence in the UK? Fact or Fiction.
Discussion
Pints said:
But what if the court of sharia found person X guilty of farting in the presence of person Y, and that they shall be put to death by stoning. Surely UK Law would intervene because that would be in violation of country's laws.
This would mock the sharia ruling, and would the sharia court even acknowledge the intervention. And assuming they don't, who is held accountable should someone "justice" be meted out in this way. (Far fetched scenario, but you see my point.)
As I would see it, simply the people throwing the stones. This would mock the sharia ruling, and would the sharia court even acknowledge the intervention. And assuming they don't, who is held accountable should someone "justice" be meted out in this way. (Far fetched scenario, but you see my point.)
I don't know a whole lot about Sharia law but as I understand it, it's more about the actual principles than prescriptive (and violent) punishment. So for example someone might be penalised financially or socially for drinking beer which is forbidden under Sharia, but they would have to basically volunteer for this.
There are all kinds of private arbitration services that are outside the legal system and I don't see any harm in having an Islamic one as such.
It's how voluntary participation is in practice that would be my concern.
AJS- said:
It's how voluntary participation is in practice that would be my concern.
This, although they do have scope for domestic violence, divorce, child custody, etc. Would women be given parity, (not that men are in the rest of legal circles). Would the ability to beat your wife come into play, meaning judgements would not be fair? How much say does a wife have when it comes to this voluntary arbitration? Will divorces be equal in that she can ask for a full divorce and receive what she will? I'm sure the fact that these Sharia courts aren't technically legally binding in the UK is of great comfort to the scores of young Muslim women murdered each year because they dared to do something outrageous, like show a bit of eyebrow/ankle in public.
The fact is that while these courts operate in Muslim communities they will be used to deal with disputes at the expense of the proper legal system. Pressure from within these communities will mean that whatever barbaric or ridiculous sentences these kangaroo courts hand out will be adhered to and the matter considere closed within the eyes of that community.
The fact is that while these courts operate in Muslim communities they will be used to deal with disputes at the expense of the proper legal system. Pressure from within these communities will mean that whatever barbaric or ridiculous sentences these kangaroo courts hand out will be adhered to and the matter considere closed within the eyes of that community.
BrewsterBear said:
I'm sure the fact that these Sharia courts aren't technically legally binding in the UK is of great comfort to the scores of young Muslim women murdered each year because they dared to do something outrageous, like show a bit of eyebrow/ankle in public.
You do realise that not every brown person reported on the news to have been involved in an "honour killing" is Muslim?The practice is also unfortunately found within the Sikh and Hindu communities. It is a cancer borne of ethnography rather than theology.
t out of you, do you put up with it for the sake of "family"?I found his style of posting always carried a healthy amount of deflection away from topics and discussions that had the potential to criticise anything Muslim.
Rather than being banned I would have preferred him to have continued to air his views, so that we might challenge him through logical argument.
Rather than being banned I would have preferred him to have continued to air his views, so that we might challenge him through logical argument.
Babu 01 said:
carmonk said:
I remember reading that a while ago. Primarily these courts are ways by which UK equality laws can be circumvented and the Islamic oppression of women upheld. They also emphasise that Muslims should not be bound by godless law of the kuffar.
Perhaps you ought to broaden the scope of your reading matter?May I suggest you start with this Spectator piece from the time of the Archbishop of Canterbury's intervention into the Sharia debate?
Babu 01 said:
A few choice snippets for you:
Top selective quoting of a clearly nonsensical assertion, which is not borne out by the article itself. It goes on to say that 65% of those surveyed rejected Sharia law. For some reason the article states that 65% is "an overwhelming majority", when it is clearly far from overwhelming. It leaves open the possibility of over half a million Muslims in the UK being in favour of Sharia law to some extent. That is broadly in line with this poll http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309983.stm that states 28% of Muslims overall would rather live under Sharia law with 37% of 16 - 24 year olds.The Spectator said:
Our survey shows British Muslims don’t want sharia
Babu 01 said:
The Spectator said:
Iraqi Shia Ayatollah Ali Sistani, one of the world’s preeminent sharia authorities, teaches that, ‘If [a Muslim] has given [a non-Muslim government] a commitment — even if indirectly (as is implied in the immigration documents) — to abide by the laws of that country, it is necessary for him to fulfil his commitment.’ If they cannot do this, they should return to Muslim territory.
Babu 01 said:
The Spectator said:
At the Madina Mosque in Bolton it was pointed out to us that tens of thousands of British Muslims practise as solicitors and barristers, and have no interest in surrendering their positions to sharia advocates. A parallel system of sharia law would be a disaster for the British Muslim community, producing legal chaos, according to the barrister Aseid Malik.
AML said:
2) To promote the legal rights of Muslims and the availability of advice in accordance with the Shari'ah of Islam.
3) To promote research into both the Shari'ah and English law with regard to specific social, political and legal issues, and to hold seminars and publish the results of any such research.
Does that sound like a group that rejects Sharia law, or one which would not consider resolution of cases under Sharia in certain circumstances? Er, no.3) To promote research into both the Shari'ah and English law with regard to specific social, political and legal issues, and to hold seminars and publish the results of any such research.
Victor McDade said:
Shariah civil courts exist in this country but then so do Beth Din, the Jewish Courts. Neither should exist imo but we can't allow one then moan about the other.
That said neither takes precedence over uk law.
They take precedence for those who are compelled to abide by their verdicts, normally women. There should be UK law and nothing else.That said neither takes precedence over uk law.
carmonk said:
Victor McDade said:
Shariah civil courts exist in this country but then so do Beth Din, the Jewish Courts. Neither should exist imo but we can't allow one then moan about the other.
That said neither takes precedence over uk law.
They take precedence for those who are compelled to abide by their verdicts, normally women. There should be UK law and nothing else.That said neither takes precedence over uk law.
Going back to your other quotes - in all cases it seems a majority of muslims prefer UK law to Sharia law, so the chances of it becoming law any time soon are minimal. I really wouldn't worry too much
carmonk said:
Really? Assuming there are 'tens of thousands of Muslim solicitors' in the UK, it's interesting to note that the UK Association of Muslim Lawyers have the following as their second and third primary aims in their mission statement.
Again, I don't see why all the doom and gloom. Have they stated they want Sharia Law instead of UK law? Not as far as I can see. As others have said, two parties should be free to decide whatever laws they want to be judged under. AML said:
2) To promote the legal rights of Muslims and the availability of advice in accordance with the Shari'ah of Islam.
3) To promote research into both the Shari'ah and English law with regard to specific social, political and legal issues, and to hold seminars and publish the results of any such research.
Does that sound like a group that rejects Sharia law, or one which would not consider resolution of cases under Sharia in certain circumstances? Er, no.3) To promote research into both the Shari'ah and English law with regard to specific social, political and legal issues, and to hold seminars and publish the results of any such research.
As I said, storm in a teacup.
Countdown said:
carmonk said:
Victor McDade said:
Shariah civil courts exist in this country but then so do Beth Din, the Jewish Courts. Neither should exist imo but we can't allow one then moan about the other.
That said neither takes precedence over uk law.
They take precedence for those who are compelled to abide by their verdicts, normally women. There should be UK law and nothing else.That said neither takes precedence over uk law.
Islam_on_witnesses_in_Law said:
And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women
Islam_on_inheritance said:
The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females
What woman in their right mind would opt to have half the inheritance she would get under UK law, if she had the choice?Countdown said:
Going back to your other quotes - in all cases it seems a majority of muslims prefer UK law to Sharia law, so the chances of it becoming law any time soon are minimal. I really wouldn't worry too much
I'm not worried, I just think it will cause trouble if it's not nipped in the bud. Each successive generation of Muslims seems more anti-West than the last and this should be addressed sooner rather than later. It sends the wrong message on a number of different fronts.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff