Sharia Law Watch

Seven_Three
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
(Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
Yes, because under Sharia law, no one gets burnt alive.
That has to be one of the craziest things I've herd in ages.
0
reply
saturn
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Bastiat)
To be clear, before people start to rant about "multiculturalism" and so on: this is not insisting that Sharia law "becomes part of" British law
No but thats what some of them want, this is a good step towards it isn't it?
0
reply
alio~
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
This is BRITAIN, there should be one law for all. If I didn't like the laws in a country then I wouldn't go and live there.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
I wonder how many people actually read the OP before posting nonsense. What is being proposed is nothing other than third party arbitration which happens all the time in the UK in full accordance with the UK laws.

This is why countries were run better when most people couldn't vote.

*sigh*
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
I personally think religion should be kept completely separate from law. No Jewish courts, no Muslim courts.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
I personally think religion should be kept completely separate from law. No Jewish courts, no Muslim courts.
Good plan. Who cares about freedom of religious expression anyway :hmmm:
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#27
Report 10 years ago
#27
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Good plan. Who cares about freedom of religious expression anyway :hmmm:
Freedom to do whatever the hell you want in your own home that doesn't harm anyone else. None of it should be sanctioned by the law.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
Freedom to do whatever the hell you want in your own home that doesn't harm anyone else. None of it should be sanctioned by the law.
Does that include agreeing with my mate to settle our differences privately according to the religion we both choose to follow?
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 10 years ago
#29
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Does that include agreeing with my mate to settle our differences privately according to the religion we both choose to follow?
Yes, but not in court.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
Yes, but not in court.
Right, well that is exactly what is being proposed. That two people who have a financial dispute both agree to go to an arbiter who will decide the matter according to the principles of the religion they follow and both agree to be bound by the decision of that arbiter. No court is involved.
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
(Original post by UniOfLife)
Right, well that is exactly what is being proposed. That two people who have a financial dispute both agree to go to an arbiter who will decide the matter according to the principles of the religion they follow and both agree to be bound by the decision of that arbiter. No court is involved.
Then there does not need to be a change in law.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 10 years ago
#32
(Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
Then there does not need to be a change in law.
That's what I said earlier on page 1 I think. This is not saying anything new. Unfortunately people are too stupid to read and think first before responding.
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
(Original post by UniOfLife)
That's what I said earlier on page 1 I think. This is not saying anything new. Unfortunately people are too stupid to read and think first before responding.
So you are agreeing with my original point?

"I personally think religion should be kept completely separate from law. No Jewish courts, no Muslim courts."
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
No. I was pointing out that your statement was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand indicating (as you later proved) that you had not read or understood what was being discussed.
0
reply
nolongerhearthemusic
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#35
Report 10 years ago
#35
(Original post by UniOfLife)
No. I was pointing out that your statement was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand indicating (as you later proved) that you had not read or understood what was being discussed.
Ah, I see. Why am I hearing about courts then? I had this explained to me by an R.S teacher and she talked about courts.

Also, thinking about it more I really am uncomfortable with the idea of any Sharia law being used in the UK if it is not properly regulated and instead at the discretion of a third party advisor. Read straight from the Qur'an and interpreted/understood yourself - fine.
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
Define "properly regulated".
0
reply
urbandervish
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by Bastiat)
Following on from the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury a few months ago, Britain's most senior judge recommends that contracts should be permitted whose terms, by agreement of the contracting parties, are arbitrated under Sharia Law.

See here.



To be clear, before people start to rant about "multiculturalism" and so on: this is not insisting that Sharia law "becomes part of" British law, in the sense that it will be used in disputes where the parties have not contracted to its so being. It also does not mean that those duty-bound components of Sharia Law (the prohibtion of drinking, drugs, adultery &c) will be incumbent on anybody.

I can find no real argument with the principle that, if two parties consent to a contract which includes "arbitration by Sharia law" as one of its terms, that contract ought to be binding and, if dispute arises, arbitrated accordingly; just as if two companies agree to a contract which includes "arbitration by merchant court" it should be mediated in precisely the fashion agreed to. (For those with access, this is a fascinating piece on how medieval businesses came to agree on 'private' courts for settling disputes)

So, should people be allowed, when engaging in private contracts, to decide on a private arbiter?
First of all, for those who haven't read the first post and have decided to chuck in some links about 'Shariah law' in order to make other posters hyperventilate and froth at the mouth; adding on top of mass hysteria and moral panic, which forms part of the wider bulwark of Islamo~Obsessive Psychosis attempting to give us a narrow & backward representation/interpretation of Islamic Law, you have once again, only succeeded in giving a response that directly correlates with Islamist responses i.e. regimes, dictators, pro-Western 'democracies' [Puppet states based on a diluted form of English Law and Tribal Laws operating under the guise of Islamic Law which is often relegated to a secondary status].You have simply attempted to trivialise the whole matter in the same fashion the worst tabloid newspapers do. My advice to you is stfu, if you don't know anything about the subject then refrain from C&Ping links to articles that don't have any relevance on the matter ... don't think you can simply cross your fingers and pray that nobody would notice such nonsense.

For those who are using article srelating to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia here's another classic example ... Sudan;

... Sudan, once a British imperial territory [which only achieved independence from British rule in 1956] is an authoritarian government [a regime], which illegitimately seized power by a military coup and rigged elections in 1989. This is not permmitted in Islam. Neither is oppression and tyranny towards ones own people.

The British sought to rule indirectly by strengthening pliant village sheikhs in the north and tribal leaders in the south, helping to create a fractured and weak ruling system in Sudan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...an_co-dominium


I really don't understand why no adequate time and reflection on such matters is ever given. :confused: It seems, people make no concerted effort to explain well and in detail, nor connect the subject properly. Perhaps the complexity and apprehension of this topic has placed a certain barrier to the effectiveness of the topic in terms of reading and understanding it clearly? I don't know, but it seems like there are a few thick heads about. ...and no, that's no "ud crap" either. ref to an inhouse joke on tsr :p:



Colonialism, Imperialism and Western influence within the Muslim world has created a breach in the historical development of Islamic Law, as seen with Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It is this breach that the Islamists such as the Taliban attempt to fill by claiming to return to the fundamental principles of Islam. Their interpretations of the sources of Islamic law are incorrect- the search for them should be seen as a reaction to the impact of Western power and the systematic de-legitimization of Islamic law and values. Prof. John Strawson. Encountering Islamic Law. University of East London.


Indeed, if anyone here actually believes that Shariah Law is implemented anywhere in the world today then, please, do provide some evidence.

Is it not true, for example, that Islamic Law played an important role in influencing Western legal theory, consider womens empowerment ~Muslim women had matrimonial rights, rights to inheritence and suffrage 1500 years before their European counterparts?



Now, as related by Yahya Birt, a man who is better versed in the subject son of Lord Birt, former BBC Director~General:

The main reason for the adverse and fearful reaction is that Shariah is popularly used as a synonym for penal law with its fixed penalties that can involve capital punishment. However, there is no Muslim representative body advocating Islamic penal law in Britain. Furthermore, the term “Shariah” itself is an umbrella concept that includes criminal and civil law, ethics, personal morality and conduct and matters of worship. Thus, due to this semantic confusion, attacks on the Shariah can often be misconstrued by Muslims as an attack upon their core values. More clarity about what Shariah actually means is essential to moving this debate forward constructively.
However, the picture on the ground is more complex and offers more creative possibilities. For some decades now under English civil law, marital and inheritance law and the arbitration of disputes have been judged under Shariah if both parties have freely consented to adjudication on that basis. This has required the civil courts to provide guidance for judges on ethnic minority law and to call upon a roster of Islamic legal specialists, many of them ulema. Where such claims have fallen foul of English law or contravened basic human rights legislation, they have been rejected by the courts. Source


We can perhaps see some parallels to to what we mean by 'sShariah law,' in this case ... take Self defence, especially in cases of domestic violence, it's often a valid defence, and will be taken into account by judges. The Court is given information about the circumstances of the case before them from defence solicitors and probation reports, and judges are legally bound to consider such information before they pass sentence. In some cases, there may well be mitigating circumstances which will affect the sentence passed.

British Courts and community justice services can deal with a case via mediation. If an offender genuinely shows remorse, and the victim is prepared to meet with them, the offender's attitude will be taken into account when passing sentence. Victim awareness is a very sigmificant issue which will be commented on where a Pre Sentence Report is ordered by the Court. So why should minority ethnic "mediation schemes" be of any less value than those in which the indigenous population participates?


Already, there has been mention of Beth Din's [Jewish courts, where a Rabbinic Judge ~ Dayyan sits at the proceedings] functioning in Britain

Both Sharia Councils and Beth Din Courts use a process the same as any case for arbitration; their decisions are binding in English law ~dealing with civil matters [divorce settlements, contractual and tenancy disputes], within their own religious codes. However, no Jew or Muslim has sought to enforce their own versions of criminal law ... just as the OP has outlined, "It also does not mean that those duty-bound components of Sharia Law (the prohibtion of drinking, drugs, adultery &c) will be incumbent on anybody." So what's the big deal???

Indeed, as a workable model, a British precedent was set over a hundred years ago when we ruled over India; a separate legal code for Muslims was organised and regulated by the British Government. Shariah is not new to the Birtish government.

So, what makes one think that Sharia Councils aren't doing the same kind of work as Jewish Courts? Both involve an 'Ulema' or 'Rabbinate.'

Again, to expand a little ... regarding divorce; Islam has been seen as the least hostile and inequitable to women. Infact, compare this to the religious rulings concerning most Catholic women and even some Orthodox Jews.. The partisan view is, however, that the British media has a field day only with Islam where women do have the equalright to divorce their partners?

It has to be said though that indeed, Muslim women are being treated less favourably by men but only within tribal and patriarchal cultures and customs which are inherently and irredeemably opposed to Islamic values ~ then how is it that Islamic Law gave women the rights to inheritance, matrimony and suffrage long before their western counterparts?

One reason is given by Professor Akbar Ahmed, visiting professor Princeton, Harvard, Cambridge:

When European colonization arrived in the Middle East and South Asia, most of the Muslim women were put into seclusion. They were locked behind walls. They were put into shawls called burkhas. This occurred because men no longer felt secure. Muslim Women — The Untold Story. The Globalist.


It must also be pointed out that Shariah law has been of great interest to western leaders who found it compatible and unifying;

I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able
to unite all the wise and educated men of all the
countries and establish a uniform regime based on the
principles of Qur'an [Shariah] which alone are true and which
alone can lead men to happiness. Napoléon Bonaparte

quoted in 'David Musa
Pidcock, Napoleon And Islam'
http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_r...leon_egypt.asp



Also, how would one react to the idea that Islam has had some influence over our own system and codes of law? According to Professor John Makdisi [II] & Professor Lawrence Rosen ;

Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator. See spoiler.


The methodology of legal precedent and reasoning by analogy (Qiyas) used in Islamic law was similar to that of the common law legal system. According to Justice Gamal Moursi Badr, Islamic law is like common law in that it "is not a written law" and the "provisions of Islamic law are to be sought first and foremost in the teachings of the authoritative jurists" (Ulema), hence Islamic law may "be called a lawyer's law if common law is a judge's law." [II]



Spoiler:
Show
It has been suggested that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal instututions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders during the Crusades.

According to Professor John Makdisi, "the royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif." The Islamic Hawala institution also influenced the development of the agency institution in English common law. Other English legal institutions such as "the scholastic method, the license to teach," the "law schools known as Inns of Court in England and Madrasas in Islam" and the "European commenda" (Islamic Qirad) may have also originated from Islamic law. These influences have led some scholars to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for "the common law as an integrated whole."

The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law. For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries. Under both a Waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis." The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East. The introduction of the trust, or "use" was primarily motivated by the need to avoid medieval inheritance taxes. By transferring legal title to a third party, there was no need to pay feudal dues on the death of the father. In those times, it was common for an underage child to lose many of his rights to his feudal overlord if he succeeded before he came of age.

The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.

The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action "for the recovery of usurped land", in contrast to the previous Roman law which "emphasized possession in resolving such disputes." The "assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq." Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which "used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves." The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836.

Islamic jurists formulated early contract laws which introduced the application of formal rationality, legal rationality, legal logic (see Logic in Islamic philosophy) and legal reasoning in the use of contracts. Islamic jurists also introduced the concepts of recession (Iqalah), frustration of purpose (istihalah al-tanfidh or "impossibility of performance"), Act of God (Afat Samawiyah or "Misfortune from Heaven") and force majeure in the law of contracts. However, recission, frustration and other core concepts in the law of contract are relatively recent introductions into the Law of England, dating back to the Victorian period. Early case law indicates that it was impossible to rescind a contract for frustration even where performance became impossible. Wiki

Makdisi, John A. 1999, 'The Islamic Origins of the Common Law,' North Carolina Law Review

Gaudiosi, Monica M. 1988, 'The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College,' University of Pennsylvania Law Review

Badr, Gamal Moursi 1984, 'Islamic Criminal Justice,' The American Journal of Comparative Law

Badr, Gamal Moursi 1978, 'Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems,' The American Journal of Comparative Law.
0
reply
Paxdax
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
(Original post by UniOfLife)
I wonder how many people actually read the OP before posting nonsense. What is being proposed is nothing other than third party arbitration which happens all the time in the UK in full accordance with the UK laws.

This is why countries were run better when most people couldn't vote.

*sigh*
Yeah
0
reply
UniOfLife
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
^
:wtf?:
0
reply
Paxdax
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
(Original post by UniOfLife)
^
:wtf?:
To your statement that we'd be better off without the vote. You know, if sucked kinda hard back then, and religion got out of hand more than once.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (264)
39.05%
No - but I will (46)
6.8%
No - I don't want to (51)
7.54%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (315)
46.6%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise