Huh? Sharia Courts.... ?

[yantorsen]

Never heard of domestic violence I take it?

exactly that's what I was talking about, how would a women be able to report it?

 

[Dolph]

Never heard of domestic violence I take it?

I've heard of it, like I said, we can offer people freedom from it, support to escape it, but we can't make them leave the situation or force them to make an allegation.

 

[Dolph]

I haven't disputed that at all. It is the results I was bringing up for the discussion. The integrity of the courts is in question.

For arbitration, the issue is not whether we agree with the outcome, but whether both parties agreed to the assessment of the problem by the group concerned, using the stated rules of the group.

Also, there have been Muslims here for at least a few decades, yet this supposed demand for Sharia courts only popped up recently. I'm pretty sure most Muslims were capable of respecting the laws of the UK (they're even obliged to, just as the rules for interest on money don't apply in non-Muslim countries).

We've recognised the Beth Din as an arbitration method for decades

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

Why should we consider restricting what alternative resolution methods people can voluntarily choose to use?

 

[Nitefly]

Why should we consider restricting what alternative resolution methods people can voluntarily choose to use?

Because they are muslim and they took our jerbs?

 

[Dolph]

Because they are muslim and they took our jerbs?

THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!!

I knew there was a good and rational reason based on a sound understanding of how our civil law system works in there somewhere

 

[Indy500]

For arbitration, the issue is not whether we agree with the outcome, but whether both parties agreed to the assessment of the problem by the group concerned, using the stated rules of the group.

There isn't enough detail in the article on the existing cases for me to establish that (the parties agreement).

We've recognised the Beth Din as an arbitration method for decades

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

Why should we consider restricting what alternative resolution methods people can voluntarily choose to use?

I've already explained it (Beth Din) isn't identical to Sharia, therefore it isn't really relevant to the points I've made. Why would c.23 paragraph 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 include an appeal procedure if the arbritation is always reliable and based on facts\evidence? The point is the results can be challenged and deemed invalid if the facts of the case were false or misrepresented.

 

[Broadie]

Hairy Muff

 

[shaffaaf27]

why are there always an anti muslim brigade?

i know freedom of speech and all, but what did we personally do to you?

 

[Killa_ken]

Bloody muslims

send them back!

 

[icey_haj]

The only fear of course is poor women who should have rights but because they are "muslim" get treated appallingly.

Under islamic law, you can never leave islam. Yeah, good luck with that.

It is quite clearly stated in the Quran that "there is no compulsion in religion"

“Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)

So please dont give me that islamic law stuff, you are maybe referring to the views of some extreme psycho wahabbi idiots.

 

[TheKnat]

If it makes them happier between civil matters then I think its a good thing. I can't help but re-iterate what others have said about the fairness towards woment though. Yes they could decide to not agree with the courts decision and take it up with the UK legal system, but then again they could have decided to not go along with that forced marrage or not to wear their ninja cotumes. In most cases it seems that they either choose to go along with thesed forced views or face the very real risk of being ostracised from everyone and everything they know.

I have NO problems with Islam or muslims, but some people don't seem to be realising that it is not an equal system and that not everyone gets the freedom to choose for themselves.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I've already explained it (Beth Din) isn't identical to Sharia, therefore it isn't really relevant to the points I've made. Why would c.23 paragraph 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 include an appeal procedure if the arbritation is always reliable and based on facts\evidence? The point is the results can be challenged and deemed invalid if the facts of the case were false or misrepresented.

Or you could equally ask why does any court have an appeals process? Because sometimes judges get it wrong, they're human, they make mistakes, pleasant as the thought may be that they are infallible they do get it wrong on occasion and even the highest courts in our land are not exempt from that.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Because sharia is an anachronistic and often vicious set of laws supposedly decided by God.

Encouraging this is a step against liberty, law should be decided on the basis of justice rather than religious edict.

This represents an attempt to regress, to abandon a section of society to its ignorance simply because it is perceived as too much effort to bring them from their delusion. It's disgusting that sharia should be censured by the state.

Indeed - nothing to see here, go back to bed, watch TV, do a crossword, pick the contents of your navel... our country is being changed before our eyes and its easier for the people in charge to do it if you convince yourself not to pay attention to it.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist"

So here's a few more channels on TV, don't think about the political changes within your country. Or better yet, convince yourself to approve.

I was thinking 'so bloody what' until I read those 2 excellent posts.

 

[jmhduck]

I'd love to see us set up a British court in an Islamic country.

That is a very good point. Why do we have to be so accomodating when we go over to 'their' countries they are not accomodating at all .

 

[Angilion]

Yes, i know they will only be dealing with domestic cases. But i was just using murder as an example of how their laws are stricter, as they get a death sentance for murder under sharia law

You also get tortured to death for adultery and tortured possibly to death for any sex that isn't approved by the authorities (who only approve sex in heterosexual marriages). The most liberal possible interpretation is torture possibly to death for adultery, but only if you ignore the hadith and interpret the Qu'ran as narrowly as possible.

You would probably be surprised to find that this is a quite mainstream Islamic position. It is not limited to raving fanatics, not by a long way. In fact, Moslems can't really get around it - it's right there in the Qu'ran, word of god stuff.

Sharia law predates medieval times, and it shows.

 

[TheKnat]

That is a very good point. Why do we have to be so accomodating when we go over to 'their' countries they are not accomodating at all .

Because we believe in freedom of choice? The eye for an eye mentality doesn't work when 2 nations have radically different aproaches to life. At the end of the day if we want to live in a society where people can be as free as possible, then you have to be accomodating and try and find as many ways as possible at keeping your citizens happy. We do this by letting religions be as involved in their communities as possible, which then leads to them being happy with our country.

They achieve the same effect in more extreme countries by using very strict punishments (death, removal of fingers, more death, etc).

Why are people so against this when lots of our rules/regulations/laws have ties to christian beliefs ? People aren't screaming about the fact you can only have 1 wife or that shops can't open for long on Sundays.

 

[scorza]

An Islamic Britain just came one step closer to reality. Aren't we supposed to be encouraging minorities to integrate and include? How does this help with that?

 

[jmhduck]

Because we believe in freedom of choice? The eye for an eye mentality doesn't work when 2 nations have radically different aproaches to life. At the end of the day if we want to live in a society where people can be as free as possible, then you have to be accomodating and try and find as many ways as possible at keeping your citizens happy. We do this by letting religions be as involved in their communities as possible, which then leads to them being happy with our country.

They achieve the same effect in more extreme countries by using very strict punishments (death, removal of fingers, more death, etc).

Why are people so against this when lots of our rules/regulations/laws have ties to christian beliefs ? People aren't screaming about the fact you can only have 1 wife or that shops can't open for long on Sundays.

I'd society to be more accommodating better privacy etc but not Sharia law. Also our laws may be based on Christian belief's, but the majority of 'older' english families will have come from a christian background anyway...

 

[semi-pro waster]

An Islamic Britain just came one step closer to reality. Aren't we supposed to be encouraging minorities to integrate and include? How does this help with that?

It's arbitration that people can agree to use to settle certain civil disputes if all parties consent. The concept of doing so isn't different to any other court of arbitration really, the levys may be but if you've consented to abide by the ruling of the arbiter then that is not an issue that the wider world should be particularly concerned with. If coercion is used to get people to agree to use these courts then that is obviously an issue, just as it would be for any court where people had to be coerced to use a system outside of a normal courtroom.

I'd society to be more accommodating better privacy etc but not Sharia law. Also our laws may be based on Christian belief's, but the majority of 'older' english families will have come from a christian background anyway...

But you asked why we are accomodating but don't get the same in return i.e. why can we not have our courts over 'there' (wherever there may be in the particular instance)?

In regard to your second point is it simply that it is more 'traditional' to have laws that have some loose links to Christian beliefs?

 

[jmhduck]

But you asked why we are accomodating but don't get the same in return i.e. why can we not have our courts over 'there' (wherever there may be in the particular instance)?

In regard to your second point is it simply that it is more 'traditional' to have laws that have some loose links to Christian beliefs?

With regard 'there' I just meant an islamic country.

I guess yes it is more traditional to have laws loosely linked to Christian belief although these are slowly being eroded or modernised depending on your political viewpoint.

Also you said people are happy with our country because we are accommodating if so why are people trying blow up innocent citizens?(Note: I am not saying all muslims are extremists!)