Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36738935

    Although the court's rulings aren't legally binding, most Muslims will voluntarily accept its rulings. It gets its laws from the Quran, not Britain's laws.

    Personally I think these council's should be banned, but what do you guys think?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Totally should be banned.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think they should be banned too. I don't see why alternative courts based on laws other than British ones should be allowed to exist in the UK, especially given the fact that their rulings are very often backwards, medieval and detrimental towards women.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Please respect muslims religious freedom - even if it goes against all domestic laws.


    Sincerely,
    A fellow regressive idiot.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    It is an entirely voluntary system between various people; so as long as its judgement do not contravene British laws (no chopping off hands or stoning for instance), every one involved is involved voluntarily and with knowledge they have right to settle the issue in an actual court, and there is no evidence of coercion against any involved party (if there is any of these law enforcement should step in), where exactly is the problem?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    It is an entirely voluntary system between various people; so as long as its judgement do not contravene British laws (no chopping off hands or stoning for instance), every one involved is involved voluntarily and with knowledge they have right to settle the issue in an actual court, and there is no evidence of coercion against any involved party (if there is any of these law enforcement should step in), where exactly is the problem?
    There's just no need for it- also, it promotes misogyny (women aren't always given 'permission' for an Islamic divorce) and the fact that it promotes a different way of life and different values to British values just makes the idea of a Sharia court stupid.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    why should there not be courts based on the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Can women become an Islamic scholar or be on the 'hearing panel' for these so called courts?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36738935

    Although the court's rulings aren't legally binding, most Muslims will voluntarily accept its rulings. It gets its laws from the Quran, not Britain's laws.

    Personally I think these council's should be banned, but what do you guys think?
    I read the bbc article which says they often discriminate against women. It mentioned forcing women to go to mediation with men even though they've been abused by them. That's so sad for these women.
    My issue is that if these courts rules differently to British law, the men can say that they will listen to their ruling and theirs only, ignoring what British laws say. In society it shouldn't be 'one rule for us, one rule for everyone else'
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    There's just no need for it- also, it promotes misogyny (women aren't always given 'permission' for an Islamic divorce) and the fact that it promotes a different way of life and different values to British values just makes the idea of a Sharia court stupid.
    I agree there's no need; and religious laws are in general stupid but what stupid stuff people do voluntarily is no one else's business; if people want to play dress up with their ancient book without harming anyone else they should be free to. If the woman wants divorce and sharia court 'refuses', she can just go to an actual court and get it sorted.

    'Way of life'/ 'British values' thing is silly however, British way of life isn't some set in stone mythical thing, it is merely collection of ways of life of people living in Britain just like every other area's way of life. As long as no actual harm is being caused - just let people have delusions.

    (Original post by strangesquark)
    I read the bbc article which says they often discriminate against women. It mentioned forcing women to go to mediation with men even though they've been abused by them. That's so sad for these women.
    My issue is that if these courts rules differently to British law, the men can say that they will listen to their ruling and theirs only, ignoring what British laws say. In society it shouldn't be 'one rule for us, one rule for everyone else'
    Then the police go 'nuh uh', and enforce British laws from actual courts like they'd with anyone violating British laws regardless of their reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    I agree there's no need; and religious laws are in general stupid but what stupid stuff people do voluntarily is no one else's business; if people want to play dress up with their ancient book without harming anyone else they should be free to. If the woman wants divorce and sharia court 'refuses', she can just go to an actual court and get it sorted.

    'Way of life'/ 'British values' thing is silly however, British way of life isn't some set in stone mythical thing, it is merely collection of ways of life of people living in Britain just like every other area's way of life. As long as no actual harm is being caused - just let people have delusions.


    Then the police go 'nuh uh', and enforce British laws from actual courts like they'd with anyone violating British laws regardless of their reasons.


    She should go to an actual British court only, it's not even an argument, so don't defend it.

    If she wants to go to a Shari'a court first, them she should emigrate immediately to a country that practices the shari'a, plain and simple.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36738935

    Although the court's rulings aren't legally binding, most Muslims will voluntarily accept its rulings. It gets its laws from the Quran, not Britain's laws.

    Personally I think these council's should be banned, but what do you guys think?
    They Jewish courts too, they be banned too? These are for internal cultural issue courts nothing to.do with judicial ones.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If these courts were not banned, devout Muslims could still follow the rulings of imams and sheikh overseas, no one would be able to stop them. So no, banning them is counter-productive.

    Besides, a real court order cannot be disobeyed in favour of one from a Shariah court. Anyone who tries to do this will face appropriate repercussions. Not to mention that these courts can only issue rulings on limited matters.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playmaker#10)
    She should go to an actual British court only, it's not even an argument, so don't defend it.

    If she wants to go to a Shari'a court first, them she should emigrate immediately to a country that practices the shari'a, plain and simple.
    So you're against private arbitration too?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    I agree there's no need; and religious laws are in general stupid but what stupid stuff people do voluntarily is no one else's business; if people want to play dress up with their ancient book without harming anyone else they should be free to. If the woman wants divorce and sharia court 'refuses', she can just go to an actual court and get it sorted.

    'Way of life'/ 'British values' thing is silly however, British way of life isn't some set in stone mythical thing, it is merely collection of ways of life of people living in Britain just like every other area's way of life. As long as no actual harm is being caused - just let people have delusions.
    But I would argue there is harm caused. If the husband insists on dragging a battered wife through the sharia courts, where they intimidate her, make her face him in mediation and ask her very uncomfortable, personal questions, then it is harming her.

    (Original post by swanderfeild)
    Then the police go 'nuh uh', and enforce British laws from actual courts like they'd with anyone violating British laws regardless of their reasons.
    In theory yes, in which case what was the point of going through the sharia courts other than to traumatise the poor woman?

    But in practise, I wonder 1) if the women will go to a British court after the ruling. After all, if lots of women find it hard to leave abusive relationships, why make it harder for them by having two separate court rulings 2) There could be an immense amount of peer pressure from family and friends for them to accept the sharia court's ruling. To many people, religion trumps British laws.

    I think realistically there'll be no difference whether we ban these courts or not. Some people will still only listen to religion. They could just ask their religious leader instead.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by strangesquark)
    But I would argue there is harm caused. If the husband insists on dragging a battered wife through the sharia courts, where they intimidate her, make her face him in mediation and ask her very uncomfortable, personal questions, then it is harming her.
    There needs to be mutual agreement for the Sharia court to hear the case; husband can't drag battered wife to the Sharia 'court'. Now yes there may be issues where the wife can practically say no (which also exist in actual courts), but legally it is quite clear.

    (Original post by strangesquark)
    In theory yes, in which case what was the point of going through the sharia courts other than to traumatise the poor woman?
    The point of going through sharia court voluntarily, is like with any other arbitration - when two parties agree to settle case out of court (because expenses, time, religion whatever), they're allowed to. If there is coercion, state steps in and goes 'nope'.

    (Original post by strangesquark)
    But in practise, I wonder 1) if the women will go to a British court after the ruling. After all, if lots of women find it hard to leave abusive relationships, why make it harder for them by having two separate court rulings 2) There could be an immense amount of peer pressure from family and friends for them to accept the sharia court's ruling. To many people, religion trumps British laws.
    1. They can legally go before, or just refuse to turn up to to sharia court. Practically issues surrounding abusive relationships exist, but they exist as wider issue in actual court and Sharia 'court'.
    2. True but that's really another issue - people are pressured into staying in abusive relationships to keep image, or whatever. That should be addressed but that exists independent of Sharia court.

    Also I'm not entirely sure abusive relationship divorce could be heard by sharia courts because they only can mediate civil disputes and abuse would be criminal matter (divorce yes but not sure what happens when civil case makes criminal claims).
    (Original post by strangesquark)
    I think realistically there'll be no difference whether we ban these courts or not. Some people will still only listen to religion. They could just ask their religious leader instead.
    Exactly, and more importantly we can't really just ban Sharia court - because they are just type of arbitration - which are generally quite useful constructs for everyone. Claimants and defendants sort their issue out, state doesn't get involved, courts deal with more important issues - everyone wins.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    If these courts were not banned, devout Muslims could still follow the rulings of imams and sheikh overseas, no one would be able to stop them. So no, banning them is counter-productive.

    Besides, a real court order cannot be disobeyed in favour of one from a Shariah court. Anyone who tries to do this will face appropriate repercussions. Not to mention that these courts can only issue rulings on limited matters.
    Yeah, the obvious solution can ofcourse only be to let them continue. We wouldnt want to do anything "counter-productive" after all, right?

    Anyone who subscribes to religious law in any form or shape should immediately move a country that has the appropriate religious laws. One does not come to the west to enjoy the freedoms of advanced societies while secretely sh*tting on the domestic legal system.

    Saudi Arabia is a good place to go.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    Yeah, the obvious solution can ofcourse only be to let them continue. We wouldnt want to do anything "counter-productive" after all, right?

    Anyone who subscribes to religious law in any form or shape should immediately move a country that has the appropriate religious laws. One does not come to the west to enjoy the freedoms of advanced societies while secretely sh*tting on the domestic legal system.

    Saudi Arabia is a good place to go.
    What are you going to do? Forcibly remove them? Force the Saudi government to take them (especially with almost all being non-Saudis)? If people want to live by backwards rules, it is their right to do so as long as they are not breaking any national laws as a result. Like the Halakhah courts, Shariah courts cannot interfere with the implementation of national law, that is why the types rulings that they are allowed to make are non-binding and limited. Mind you, many were born here so did not "come to the West" to begin with.

    No, we would not. It is better than people seeking advice from a much more archaic website run by a Saudi Islamic scholar.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Ban them. They have no place here.

    (Original post by the bear)
    why should there not be courts based on the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
    Ramen to that!!!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This is Britain 2016 for crying out loud
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.