Welcome to the "one-step-at-a-time" zone. More on this story. "Muslim community uses own tribunals," from Express and Star, September 17:
Islamic tribunals have been set up in the West Midlands to resolve disputes among the Muslim community.Special hearings, comprising of an Islamic scholar and a lawyer, are hearing arguments before making rulings which are legally binding before proceedings start. A Black Country judge has been appointed to advise the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) on how to make their rulings fit in with English law.
Shamim Qureshi, a district judge who lives in Wolverhampton and regularly sits at the city’s magistrates court, said they were not Sharia courts and were legally binding under the Arbitration Act 1996.
He told the Express & Star today: “That suggests it’s a court and that Sharia law is adopted in its entirety. We’re taking a bit of it, which is civil Islamic law.
“MAT is arbitration and that exists in this country. Any two people can agree to it, just like a contract with an insurance company for home insurance.”
He highlighted one case where one man was found by the panel to owe money to another man.
The panel highlighted the fact that the debtor spoke Arabic and ruled that he should teach the language to the son of the man he owed money to.
Mr Qureshi said: “Both sides were happy to deal with it in that way.
And this solution could only have been reached by relying on sharia? A Solomon-like figure arbitrating according to "common sense" -- not Islamic principles -- could come up with the same sort of solutions. But obviously that would never do: what sort of Muslim is willing to abide by judgments pronounced by kuffara living in a state of jahiliyya?
How does that old saying go, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step?"
It may be a good time to drink a few pints at the local pub before it's disallowed by the Sharia court, and raise a toast to Olde England before it's gone...forever.
"We're taking a bit of it,". We know all about it. Death by a thousand cuts.
How many steps will it take before non-Muslims are brought before these courts for insulting Islam? England has been defeated by those within its own walls.
Or, to give the newspaper its full name, The Wolverhampton Express and Star.
Wolverhampton, in the English west midlands, has a very high Muslim population (as does the Birmingham area generally) and is evidently well on its way to full dhimmitude. Type "west midlands police" in the Google search box on this page to get a wider perspective.
Judge Qureshi says that “MAT is arbitration and that exists in this country. Any two people can agree to it, just like a contract with an insurance company for home insurance.”
I do not believe this is correct. The range of matters with respect to which parties can consent to binding arbitration is laid down and limited - by British law.
I am a lawyer quite familiar with commercial arbitration though I do not have a list of all the types of matters that can be arbitrated - perhaps I should prepare one. I am quite sure, though, that criminal matters are not among them and I would be surprised if family and inheritance matters were.
I note that the article goes on to say: "Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, said any decisions passed on family and criminal law would be “unlawful”.
In family law, the tribunals can grant Islamic divorces but a couple would only be legally divorced under British law if it was granted by a British court."
And a question from me. In commercial matters, the parties can elect to have their disputes settled by arbitration and any arbitration ruling will be enforced by the Courts. It is imprecise, in my opinion, to say that such rulings are legally binding. The parties can also choose the law which governs the contract between them.
This is all old stuff. Now it would seem that parties can choose to have contracts governed by sharia law and there would be nothing novel or surprising in this. But is there in fact a sharia contract law, in the way we have English, Scottish, French etc contract law. People, including me, assume this is the case but is it correct?
Islamic law must not be rejected because it is islamic law, it must be rejected because it is agaisnt natural law:
Examples of natural law:
- man and woman are equal,
- all human beings are equal in dignity,
- a mariage is between ONE man and ONE woman,
- all human beings have freedom of conscience, expression and religion,
- ...
So, most aspects of islamic law must be rejected as evil, some aspects of islamic law could be accepted.
What idiocy! To think that shari'a law won't creep even further into the system of British law.
We are only letting the python of Islam swallow one foot, so far.
That should calm people, no?