Revealed: UK?s first official sharia courts

[Religious Dick]

From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Revealed: UK?s first official sharia courts
Abul Taher

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.

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. 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.

Siddiqi said: ?We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.?

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future ?seems unavoidable? in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, 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.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of ?smaller? criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. ?All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,? said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a ?parallel legal system? based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: ?If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.?

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: ?I think it?s appalling. I don?t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.?

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that 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.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: ?The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.?

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.

Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

[Plane]

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. 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 they are optional and have only the power that both partys agree to , I don't find this objectionable.

[Religious Dick]

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. 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 they are optional and have only the power that both partys agree to , I don't find this objectionable.

Not yet, you don't....


logo
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
From Magna Carta to Sharia Law ? Britain?s Decline
By A. Millar
Created 2008-09-15 19:35
Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, few us knew anything about Islam, and no one had heard of sharia law. A couple of years ago even, it seemed unimaginable that Britain would adopt Islamic law.
 
We have sunk further and quicker than we thought possible. Today we learned that sharia courts (which have operated illegally in Britain until now) are being re-classed as tribunal hearings, making their judgments legally binding. According to the Daily Express, ?new powers have been given to tribunals in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network?s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.? According to the Daily Mail, this ?? new network of courts ? agree(s) to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.?
 
It is almost unbelievable that this should occur in a modern, democratic, Western country, and, moreover, under a government that claims to be liberal, and to care about the right of women and homosexuals among others. But, tracing the actions of the pro-Islamic Labour Party, and of modern liberalism more generally, it should have been predictable. Modern liberalism is not a force for human rights and equality (though it still uses these terms where they can be of use in breaking down British tradition); it is a selfish urge for freedom for one?s own self ? others be damned. Multiculturalism frees the liberal from the demands of ?culture.? Mass immigration frees him from the need to know his history. Invoking the Inquisition of three hundred years ago frees him from having to confront the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. The establishment of sharia law no doubt frees him from holding any position whatsoever.
 
I have pointed out before, that the Labour government has colluded with extremist Muslims, even employing a Holocaust denier as an advisor on Muslim affairs. Ken Livingstone, the former Left-wing Mayor of London, has also openly embraced Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a man who believes that wives can be beaten into submission, that homosexuals should be executed, and pregnant Israeli women should be murdered. The UK?s Left-wing Respect Coalition Party asserts that opposition to radical Islam is ?the new racism,? and this dangerous sentiment is now received wisdom among those closer to the center of the political spectrum. But Islam is neither a race nor ethnicity, but a religion, and one that has Asian, Black, and White followers. A 2006 UK government report entitled ?Young Muslims and Extremism,? notes that a significant number of White Britons were being drawn into Islamic terrorism, and we have seen a few example of White Muslim jihadis since then.
 
The sharia courts operating in Britain, will hear and pass legally binding judgment on cases involving divorce, financial disputes, and even domestic violence. But, it will not end there. According to the Daily Mail, sharia court officials have said, that they hope, ?[?] to take over growing numbers of 'smaller' criminal cases in future,? and extremist clerics have already asserted their aims to establish sharia law for everyone in Britain. Only yesterday, the Sun newspaper showed a video of radical clerics announcing plans to take over Britain:

    It may be by pure conversion that Britain will become an Islamic state. We may never need to conquer it from the outside.

This, among other similar pronouncements, was made at a rally billed as a debate on whether the West had ?learned the lessons? of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Apparently, we have not.
 
Sharia law regards women as inferior to men, and non-Muslims as inferior to Muslims, and it demands the execution of homosexuals. Sharia courts in Britain have already tried cases in domestic violence, and have issued no punishments beyond requiring the abuser get mentoring from Muslim elders and to attend anger management classes. In my opinion, this is an entirely unacceptable judgment for those who inflict violence on women. According to the Daily Mail, again:

    In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter ? in keeping with sharia law.

The establishment of sharia law in Britain, even on a minor scale, not only undermines British law and culture of equality ?under the law,? with cases judged by a jury of one?s peers, but is implicitly menacing to people of all non-Muslim religions, atheists, conservatives, women, homosexuals, and people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 
Conservatives and Christians have criticized the so-called ?gay lifestyle,? and liberals have always furiously denounced those conservatives and Christians for saying this. But liberals are those who have remained utterly silent when extremist Muslim clerics have called for the execution of homosexuals or the beating of women. The liberal establishment generally, and the Labour government in particular, has betrayed their professed belief in human rights and equality, and are ushering in extremism and intolerance. If their proposed new Bill of Rights for the UK goes ahead as planned, extremist Muslims may have yet another advantage, as it is proposed that religious minorities will be given additional rights, thus possibly reinforcing sharia.
 
Whatever their difference, the people of Britain must form a broad coalition to oppose such extremism. The homosexual man or woman, the Hindu, Sikh, and atheist, have as much to lose as the White British Christian.
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522

[Xavier_Onassis]

The biggest defect in British government is that there is no constitution, so it is legal to set up special courts for fringe Jews and fanatical Muslims. The logical thing would be to tell these folks that they are welcome to stay, but this being a British country, you are just going to have to act sort of British. Forget polygamy, treat your women as human beings, learn the bloody language and behave as the law dictates. You can eat anything except pets and dance and sing in any form you wish that does not disturb the neighbors.

Or you can leave. There are about another 208 countries you can live in, try another one.