Turn on thread page Beta

Sharia courts in the UK watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    Well they obviously exist because they're needed. If a muslim living in Britain wants a case to be dealt with under sharia law then it's only logical for them to go to a sharia court. For the muslims (presumably the majority) who'd rather have it done under British law go through the normal courts.

    This is Britain, the sharia courts may be considered harsh but it's a free country they can't force muslims to deal their cases there if they don't want to. The muslims who do want it obviously go to the courts themselves because they require sharia ruling like they may have done in their own countries. There are problems though as highlighted by the article, but imagine if sharia courts were banned...there'd be outrage!
    But that is the question - how on earth and why would a woman who has had extramarital sex CHOOSE(!?!?) to be judged according to sharia law and be stoned or whipped?

    Then, they do not even have the authority to stone or whip or imprison someone, so what would the punishment be if it had to be within the legal parameters of English law? Really dodgy and it is a problem that needs to be taken care of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Setting up arbitration tribunals is perfectly within British law, and indeed not only assists the judicial system but would - if prevented from operating - be a complete affront to the liberal principles of this country.
    wow guess what i just lernt! i thaught it was illegal, like taking the law into your own hands, if it's legal surly these courts can still be overruled by the supreme court in westminister
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's excellent that people have the freedom to be tried under their religious law, if they want to be. I actually can't comprehend why anyone else should have a problem with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    More funding to science in UK schools to stop retards growing up and not having a clue and carrying on being a religious retard because they was brought up by religious retards.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sharia law is not being enforced upon anybody, if people wish to settle matters through sharia then what's everybody else's problem? No-one's making you do it. and in regards to some of the comments, it is simply ignoranct of people to say that Islam lowers the status of women etc., this is not the case and you should research things properly before you make judjements like that. Women in Islam are given the most respect compared to any other culture, Islam doesn't see women as objects to perv on or to give you a good time, a woman is so much more than that.. that's actually so degrading.

    Sharia law may seem harsh but when you do research on it properly it becomes a lot clearer and this is not the case.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Dream Weaver)
    This IS Britain, and therefore they should be judged under British law. No one should have the choice of which courts to use, they live in this country and so should use this country's courts.
    If they want God to judge their case, they can wait till judgement day and in the meantime our common law is pretty damn good enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Setting up arbitration tribunals is perfectly within British law, and indeed not only assists the judicial system but would - if prevented from operating - be a complete affront to the liberal principles of this country.

    If you don't like it, maybe you should go elsewhere.



    Unless by 'secularise' you mean something akin to culling all religious people, then it wouldn't make any difference. Arbitration tribunals are not part of the state, they are private organisations which function by agreement between parties.
    What liberal principles? We're not exactly the most liberal country in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It" - Why can't we take this attitude???

    It Works!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Russell-Crowe)
    More funding to science in UK schools to stop retards growing up and not having a clue and carrying on being a religious retard because they was brought up by religious retards.
    great contribution mate

    now gtfo
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    This article is from the Daily Mail and is used to whip up fear.

    Religious courts exist in the UK for a long time:

    British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.


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

    I don't see what the problem is for religious minorities to solve their civil disputes in their own courts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wolfrace)
    great contribution mate

    now gtfo
    You're a retard......the worse kind as well, a religious retard!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    These aren't actual courts though, the judgments may be approved and implemented by our courts if we see fit but its not as though they can overrule our courts or do anything without our approval.

    Anybody can set up a panel and pass judgment on somebody if they wish, it doesn't mean any of it is legally enforceable without higher authority, so basically, who cares?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by DMV)
    What liberal principles? We're not exactly the most liberal country in the world.
    What Lib is saying is that this is no more than communities in the UK having their own means of settling disputes.

    It is more of a question of making the civil courts load easier, than subscribing to liberal principles ...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DAFOne)
    But that is the question - how on earth and why would a woman who has had extramarital sex CHOOSE(!?!?) to be judged according to sharia law and be stoned or whipped?
    :rolleyes:

    Islamic law is broad. We are generally accepted to be part of a Judeo-Christian legal tradition - that does not mean that British courts stone adulterers even if justification for that can be found in some of our religious texts. It is the same for Sharia - the vast majority of which is not about stoning people and is more or less uncontroversial. There is a liberal Islamic law tradition - not all Islamic countries go around whipping and stoning people, you know...

    Then, they do not even have the authority to stone or whip or imprison someone, so what would the punishment be if it had to be within the legal parameters of English law?
    Tribunals don't issue 'punishments', they resolve disputes.

    (Original post by rrea436)
    wow guess what i just lernt! i thaught it was illegal, like taking the law into your own hands, if it's legal surly these courts can still be overruled by the supreme court in westminister
    They can if they act beyond their authority, but ultimately what arbitration does is attempt to find agreement between two parties based on shared principles or, if that cannot be found, they submit themselves to the authority of the tribunal to decide the matter in a fair way.

    Arbitration is encouraged as courts are intended to be a last resort in settling disputes and only when other avenues are exhausted is suing someone considered the proper thing to do.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Casse)
    This article is from the Daily Mail and is used to whip up fear.

    Religious courts exist in the UK for a long time:

    British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.


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

    I don't see what the problem is for religious minorities to solve their civil disputes in their own courts.
    They are not "Religious courts". They are religious tribunals. They only legitimacy they have, is that the parties give it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    It is more of a question of making the civil courts load easier, than subscribing to liberal principles ...
    I think the latter is far more important, as it happens. Being able to settle disputes out of court by asking someone else to take an opinion on a matter is fundamental to the freedom to contract with others. Indeed, I'd like to see how a country could actively prevent these tribunals from operating without entirely perverting that basic liberty.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    They are not "Religious courts". They are religious tribunals. They only legitimacy they have, is that the parties give it.
    That is true. These tribunals are purely voluntary so I think these articles are over-exaggerating this issue. Also they tend do solve disputes in civil matters, not criminal cases.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by rrea436)
    wow guess what i just lernt! i thaught it was illegal, like taking the law into your own hands, if it's legal surly these courts can still be overruled by the supreme court in westminister
    To the best of my knowledge, the rulings don't carry any legal weight at all, and the verdicts are only carried out with the consent of both parties (in a strictly legal sense). A problem only arises when one of the parties is pressured into accepting the verdict, be it by threats of violence or threats of being ostracised from the community.

    EDIT: Took a bit long to type that. :o:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=L i b]:rolleyes:

    Islamic law is broad. We are generally accepted to be part of a Judeo-Christian legal tradition - that does not mean that British courts stone adulterers even if justification for that can be found in some of our religious texts. It is the same for Sharia - the vast majority of which is not about stoning people and is more or less uncontroversial. There is a liberal Islamic law tradition - not all Islamic countries go around whipping and stoning people, you know...



    Tribunals don't issue 'punishments', they resolve disputes.


    I totally agree with this point.., so glad someone brought it up, there are many islamic countires which dont practice all elements of sharia law AND have their own countries law too.. I think people need to understand the context of sharia law.. plus what about sharia banking/financial things ?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Casse)
    That is true. These tribunals are purely voluntary so I think these articles are over-exaggerating this issue. Also they tend do solve disputes in civil matters, not criminal cases.
    A tribunal, as far as I am aware, can't deal with criminal cases. But even if it did, it cannot contradict British law.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.