Sharia (Islamic Law) in Great Britain

[werepossum]

I noticed an article today in the Times that said Sharia has been adopted as legally binding law in Great Britain.

Here's the article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

The gist of it is this - the cleric Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi took advantage of a clause in Arbitration Law that allows legally binding arbitration if both parties agree. This allows and requires the Sharia courts' decisions to be enforced by all UK courts. It is still arbitration, though - you can't be forced into it, although assuming you are Muslim you could face sanctions if you refuse to submit to Sharia law. This has particular relevance in domestic violence cases, since UK law and Sharia law, um, vary somewhat as to whether a husband may beat his wife.

I don't think this legalizes polygamy, since criminal law can't be arbitrated, or the more draconian penalties authorized under Sharia. It has the limitations of any arbitration process, which is designed to allow to parties to work out disputes and complaints without burdening the courts. If for instance a wife files a criminal complaint alleging abuse, she would have to withdraw the complaint; it would not automatically disappear simply because she agreed to a hearing in Sharia court. Or at least so it seems to me, with my admittedly spotty knowledge of arbitration.

So how do you feel about this? Is it a dangerous excursion into crossing the line between church and state, something admirable that should be emulated by the Church of England, something suitable for Muslims but not non-Muslims, or some other take?

Discuss, please.

 

[Colonel Joson]

WHY WHY WHY?

Why should there laws legally Binding? I mean what the heck?.

If say, tons of english people, went to a country full of islams, And asked for there laws to legally binding, The islams would say no. So why the hell are giving them the right to there laws in OUR country. Its not right IMO

 

[Jovlo]

Laws and the legal system should be based on reason, never on (whichever) religion and I hope people will one day understand.
Socrates would be ashamed about this big step back in time.

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

WHY WHY WHY?

Why should there laws legally Binding? I mean what the heck?.

If say, tons of english people, went to a country full of islams, And asked for there laws to legally binding, The islams would say no. So why the hell are giving them the right to there laws in OUR country. Its not right IMO

1.English is a nationality
2.Islam is a religion
3.the followers of Islam are called Muslims

I personally think people, regardless of their religion, should follow the law of the land and not their religion.

 

[RetiarySword]

I don't agree with it. Here are the quotes what hit me:

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.

The whole givign more to the sons is unfair, they are all children of the deseased. Gender shouldn't matter here.

Also the fact that the men who hit their wifes were sent to anger management, and got mentoring from 'comunity elders' is a complete joke. You break the law, you take the punishment.

 

[Kikosemmek]

I have one philosophy regarding all forms of law: if it does not serve its subjects by protecting them from direct social, political and/or economical harm, then the law is meaningless and void.

This is a travesty.

 

[Sardonac]

Good for them. Although I hope it's watched closely to make sure nothing violates any human rights as Sharia Law appears prone to doing.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

I personally think people, regardless of their religion, should follow the law of the land and not their religion.

Ya well most religious freedom laws are to protect "persecuted" Christians against the terrifying atheists.

So har-har and a bag of chips that it's biting you in the ass.

 

[FenrirsWilly]

I think the idea of arbitration outside of the courts is useful in the way that, as you said, it doesn't burden the court system. That being said I don't like the idea of Sharia law because, again as you said, it crosses the line that is supposed to separate church and state.

I am all for taking the genuinely good rules that are used in religions and applying them to laws, but every religion always wants it's own little slice of the pie and get in what they think is critically important and this is usually led by the fanatics of each religion. (giant point of the finger to every religion, you all have fanatics)

 

[Limasol]

Not legally binding in law, but legally binding to Muslims, who pretty much already followed it.

My opinion: ABSOLUTE BLOODY DISASTER.

There's an area in Greece near turkey where Sharia law is allowed in Greek law for Muslim couples, however the inequality this creates is mind boggling, ever since it was discovered that Turkey was giving money to the sharia association of Greece that won the bylaw things have been somewhat tense.

Any set of laws that have religious backing will be fought tooth and nail by me. We live in a secular society because having such vested interests is bad!! If you want Islamic law, go to an Islamic country, you can't have it both ways at the expense of other people who decide to think freely.

 

[NeedAUserName]

WHY WHY WHY?

Why should there laws legally Binding? I mean what the heck?.

If say, tons of english people, went to a country full of islams, And asked for there laws to legally binding, The islams would say no. So why the hell are giving them the right to there laws in OUR country. Its not right IMO

This statement fails in so many ways.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This is nonsensical to me. I can't wrap my American head around it. So I can go to the UK, set up a courtroom in a garage somewhere, and preside over criminal cases all I want?

 

[ThePlasmatizer]

This is nonsensical to me. I can't wrap my American head around it. So I can go to the UK, set up a courtroom in a garage somewhere, and preside over criminal cases all I want?

In England, people generally try to accomadate people of different cultures and all religions, but some people take advantage of this generosity.

 

[TheBadass]

This is nonsensical to me. I can't wrap my American head around it. So I can go to the UK, set up a courtroom in a garage somewhere, and preside over criminal cases all I want?

...No.

Well, yes--

Maybe.

It's not like they can allow wife beating people, get that idea out of your head. The second someone tries to pass someone for that the whole system would be revoked as it would be seen as an abuse of power.

 

[Easykill]

I don't think I really know enough to have a reasonable opinion, but I imagine this is going to cause quite an uproar. Too bad.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

I am quite happy to welcome peoples from other nations into my homeland, but I draw the line when they try to change my nation into theirs.

Even if it effects me in no way personally whatsoever!

Next do a rant about those frilly curtains that the people from Romania put up. Man! This is Canada. We put up white curtains. This is tantamount to an INVASION!

If you want to immigrate to Canada, it must be because you want to BE CANADIAN.

YA!

Now would that be French Canadian or English Canadian? Newfie or Prairie? Aboriginal or colonist?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

It's not like they can allow wife beating people, get that idea out of your head. The second someone tries to pass someone for that the whole system would be revoked as it would be seen as an abuse of power.

Isn't that precisely what happened in the article though? I thought the six wife-beaters got let off with anger management and "elder mentoring?"

 

[Amnestic]

Even if it effects me in no way personally whatsoever!

If they (as in, people who have immigrated to a country) are trying to change the laws to fit their culture/religion better, surely it DOES affect people living there personally. The laws affect everyone, no matter how small. It helps to define cultural norms and what is accepted socially (though obviously not the sole decider).

If you were a landlord and your rule was no cats, but a tenant moved in and said "Well, it's in my culture/religion to keep cats, so screw you, I'm going to go get the rules changed at a higher power." Would you *really* sit there and do nothing? No, the rule against cats was there for a reason. You don't want it changed by someone who'd moved it, it's your apartment block, your rules.

What Khell said is spot on, if you come to a new country, you have to respect their laws and customs and in turn, the host country will try to give you fair space to practise your own culture. Anything other than that is a spit in the face of the people who welcomed you with open arms.