Sharia Law Rules OK!

[jambutty]

The Sunday Times declares.
“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.”

You can read more at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Muslim cases today. Mixed religion cases tomorrow.

A possible scenario.

A Muslim’s builder lays a driveway in your property. You, a non Muslim, think that his work is shoddy and refuse to pay him until he puts it right. He refuses and takes his case to a Sharia Court.

The thin end of the wedge has been firmly inserted and it is only a matter of time before Sharia law becomes fully incorporated into English law.

Well done Mullah Brown. You’ve just turned the UK into a Muslim country of the future.

[pipinfort]

Better get that deposit down on our villa in Tenerife.............

[shakermaker]

Why do you feel the need to put certain sections of the article in big letters and different colours? Are we incapable of seeing emphasis? You're like a personal tabloid.

[Gayle]

You stopped short in your first post - the next bit said

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.


If BOTH parties agree - so if you're never going to agree to the decision by a sharia court you can't be tried in one!

[Wynonie Harris]

The article also says that Jewish Beth Din courts have been operating in the same way (ie - under arbitration which both parties have agreed to) for over 100 years.

[emamum]

people complain about muslims not following the law then they complain when something is done about it.......

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Gayle

You stopped short in your first post - the next bit said

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.


If BOTH parties agree - so if you're never going to agree to the decision by a sharia court you can't be tried in one!

then the whole thing is pointless but..

muslim women for instance will be beaten into accepting it so basicly all the govenment have done is give muslims the right to beat their women becase a: they will be beaten into accepting this stupid crack pot courts ruling and b: if they go to court for domestic violence these courts will not support them

are we going to have public stonings as long as both parties agree ?

welcome to englanstan

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Why do you feel the need to put certain sections of the article in big letters and different colours? Are we incapable of seeing emphasis? You're like a personal tabloid.

You forgot to complain about my post using Times New Roman size 12 instead of the forum default.

Sheeesh!!!

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Gayle

You stopped short in your first post - the next bit said

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.


If BOTH parties agree - so if you're never going to agree to the decision by a sharia court you can't be tried in one!

I could have reproduced the whole article but that would have taken up a lot of room so I opted to quote the first few paragraphs followed by:
You can read more at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Actually the next bit was,
“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.”

Then came, “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.”

If BOTH parties agree - so if you're never going to agree to the decision by a sharia court you can't be tried in one!

You don’t get a decision by any court until AFTER you have been tried.

If a Muslim takes you to a Sharia court in a civil dispute and you don’t turn up to defend yourself, the plaintiff can get judgement, just like in a County Court for a civil case. Then, “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” comes into play.

So you get a judgement against you in a Sharia court, which is then enforceable through the County or High Courts.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

The article also says that Jewish Beth Din courts have been operating in the same way (ie - under arbitration which both parties have agreed to) for over 100 years.

Very true but the Jews are not committed to promoting their faith until everyone in the world is a Jew.

[banjoman]

Because its classed as an arbitration panel, if you refuse arbitration the case cannot be heard there so the plaintiff cannot get a ruling at all. Therefore you cannot be tried in a Sharia court unless you give express permission

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by banjoman

Because its classed as an arbitration panel, if you refuse arbitration the case cannot be heard there so the plaintiff cannot get a ruling at all. Therefore you cannot be tried in a Sharia court unless you give express permission

The small claims court is to all intents and purposes an arbitration court where the Recorder will make a ruling based on whatever evidence is presented and statements by the two protagonists. But if the defendant does not turn up the plaintiff gets judgement.

[Gayle]

But it says quite clearly that both parties have to agree in advance, they have to give it the power in the first place.

If someone said they were to try me by sharia law and I refused to acknowledge that system then I would be unable to be tried by that system. Both parties have to agree in advance to accept whatever the outcome will be.

[blazey]

What has domestic violence got to do with anything, it says civil cases? Last thing on a victim of domestic violence's mind is compensation surely? I think I'd be concentrating on getting them behind bars!

I've never had a muslim try to convert me before either, I really should start paying more attention to my friends.

[mani]

How many times are ppl going to bring this up?!

if two parties do not agree to on going through this then no one can force them to go thru this!

stupid people seem to think this panel is the be all and end all of all british law

even a percentage of muslims in the uk do not recognise this court!!

it really is the racists who seem to make a HUGE issue of this in that all of a sudden everyone will have to go through this. this is designed to sort out complex muslim issues within their own community.

and accyman - you really shouldnt go talking crap like that when you dont know exactly what happens in such cases. if you have been through domestic abuse regardless of religion/caste/creed you would know the last thing on your mind is compensation. FYI i have a friend who was a victim of domestic abuse and her family went through such a court to get a divorce and it was granted in her favour. she then persued the actual domestic abuse case via the british courts as she wanted him jailed. this court doesnt have the power to do that.