Lending legitimacy to a system that does not deserve it, and would seek to subjugate them if it were strong enough. "Fears over non-Muslim's use of Islamic law to resolve disputes," by Afua Hirch for the Guardian, March 14:
Campaigners have voiced concerns over a growing number of non-Muslims using Islamic law to resolve legal disputes in Britain despite controversy over the role of sharia law.
A spokesman for the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that there had been a 15% rise in the number of non-Muslims using sharia arbitrations in commercial cases this year. Last year, more than 20 non-Muslims chose to arbitrate cases at the network of tribunals, which operate in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester, Nuneaton and Luton. "We are offering a cheap and effective service for Muslim and non-Muslims," said MAT spokesperson Fareed Chedie.
"95% of the people who come to us for arbitration do not feel they need legal representation." Chedie said that tribunals deal mainly with civil and commercial cases, including mosque disputes referred by the Charity Commission. But the tribunals have also continued to hear cases in the field of family law and divorce, Chedie said.
"We are increasingly dealing with reconciliation and mediation in marriage," said Chedie. "Many of these are cases where women have petitioned because they have a difficult marriage and want some guidance and direction. If they then want to terminate the marriage then we can help with that."
The increase in marriage and divorce cases comes as one law firm has begun offering advice on civil Scots law and sharia law, making it the first in Britain to offer both civil and Islamic law as part of one service.
Glasgow law firm Hamilton Burns says that it is responding to a greater demand from Muslim clients who want advice on sharia law alongside civil advice under Scots law. It has teamed up with Shaykh Amer Jamil, a Muslim scholar who specialises in Islamic family law.
"We hope that by incorporating sharia family jurisprudence against a background of domestic Scottish legislation, we can provide our clients with as much relevant information as possible," said Niall Mickel, a solicitor advocate and managing partner at Hamilton Burns.
But some groups have criticised the move by the Scottish firm, arguing that the recognition of sharia law decisions in Britain is regressive and harmful to women....
The increase in marriage and divorce cases comes as one law firm has begun offering advice on civil Scots law and sharia law, making it the first in Britain to offer both civil and Islamic law as part of one service.
....................
This isn't an indication of respect for civil Scots law—they just want to muddy the waters and gain legitimacy for Shai'ah. Scots who aren't paying much attention may come to assume that Shari'ah isn't all that bad—or all that different from Scottish law as a result.
More stealth Jihad.
Rowan Williams, of course, will have no problem with this. Evidence of The Fall Of Britain unless things are set right real soon like.
Good God.
That's all I can muster up right now. Too appalled.
Sharia ...should be called Shyster Law.
A 15% rise sounds a lot more impressive than "three more non-muslims used us last year."
It's a boosting announcement by the MAT, but almost no non-muslim Britons used the MAT last year - it's less than one in three million! Tell Fareed Chedie that he's "a legend in his own lunchbox" as I've heard it put. If they keep growing at this percentage rate, they might have almost 100 non-muslim customers in a decade. How exciting for them :-)
The Guardian should not have published this article, because
- the article, headline and sub-headline give the impression that it is a serious issue when it is meaninglessly small
- an increase from 20 to 23 customers is well within random variation, and not a meaningful increase at all
- the article lends legitimacy to a system that does not deserve it
Infidel women in difficult marriages are seeking "guidance" from sharia-courts?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
How long can a Nation stand with 2 separate sets of laws?
This comes as little surprise. Leading figures in Britain, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have championed the introduction of of shari'ah "family" courts into the UK. If Rowen Williams thinks they are such a swell idea why not his few remaining congregants?
I cannot think of one legal matter that would compel a non muslim to seek advice from any of these headbangers.
The only possibility I can think of is the increasing numbers of British women who get involved with the soldiers of allah and require some grooming, a bit of taqiyya and a bit of Islamo-schmooze before marriage/conversion.
"We hope that by incorporating sharia family jurisprudence against a background of domestic Scottish legislation........"
Given that the two are essentially incompatible, I for one find this statement completely incomprehensible.
A masterpiece of obsfucation.
I suppose it's halal to sell bunk legal advice to kufr...I question the sanity of the kufr seeking out sharia law...Are they really kufr? Does this mean that kufr are putting faith in Allah since sharia is clearly his? Would Christians seek out a Satanic court to help them with their legal problems?
Is this 15% real, or is it part of a 'soften them up' propaganda campaign to slip sharia into kufr acceptance...
Bloody Grauniad! Another non-story for the chattering classes to drool over.
There's a very real danger here, though - with the leftie press constantly undermioning the rule of law and the police, sodding incompatible European law tediously available to contradict British legal decisions and Moslem shyster lawyers infesting all the courts in the land, people will resort increasingly to alternative authorities for personal/civil decisions. For as long as the PC/MSM keeps selling Islam as the religion of peace and the perception remains of Islam as a 'religion' in western terms - i.e. a highly moral and admirable enterprise akin to Christianity - people will give it misguided respect - and hand a treasonous newspaper easy column-inches.
Glad I don't live there any more - I'd soon be needing a lawyer and in trouble for demanding a white one.
I have always thought Rowan Williams was playing his part as a member of the establishment.
40 years ago a leading British historian wrote, "There is nothing the British politician finds so thoroughly disagreeable as (the need to make) a decision."
The truth is sharia courts had been up and running for years but their existence was becoming public knowledge. What were our "leaders" to do? They could not admit they had let things go so far and any attempt to suppress them would cost them the vital muslim vote. It could also cause riots that would harm "community cohesion". So they pretended they were a "good thing" allowing "our muslim citizens" manage their own affairs without burdening the courts.
Rowan Williams was not the only one to support sharia courts, I believe the Attorney General joined in too. When the establishment makes statements like this they are actually testing public reaction for the politicians in advance of something nasty. Neither Williams or the Attorney General were in danger of being voted out so they were a prefect sounding board. In the the establishment mind they have avoided a confrontation. By granting legitimacy to certain sharia courts they can in theory suppress any unofficial sharia court and therefore retain some degree of control - in theory.
BTW When the UK divorce laws were reformed in the 1990's the Orthodox Jewish Community requested TWO or THREE WORDS in the proposed law be changed. This would have removed some small anomaly between Jewish and English law affecting the position of women. They approached the Attorney General of the day and were politely told, "No chance" - the law could not be altered for any religious group.
That was then and how they have changed their tune!
These claims of non-Muslims seeking sharia compliant conflict resolution sound more like marketing propaganda. This characterization is rather vague:
In a legal dispute, there are at least two parties involved. Were both parties to these disputes non-Muslim? Of these 20 non-Muslims who opted for the Muslim arbitration tribunal (sharia court) . . .how many of these cases involved a dispute with a Muslim who preferred/suggested saving money through sharia courts?
Color me skeptical. After all, it's reported in "The Guardian", hardly a beacon of clarity .
It's time to gather the clans! Time for pipe bands all over Scotland to start playing "Scotland the Brave"!
Miira wrote:
In a legal dispute, there are at least two parties involved. Were both parties to these disputes non-Muslim? Of these 20 non-Muslims who opted for the Muslim arbitration tribunal (sharia court) . . .how many of these cases involved a dispute with a Muslim who preferred/suggested saving money through sharia courts?
.........................
Yes—I wondered about this, as well. But there is a real danger here, as well, even if the numbers so far are small. If cases with one one Muslim litigant were to commonly land in Shari'ah court rather than the legitimate Scottish courts, it would spread Muslim supremacy, and legitimize the idea that *any legal proceeding* involving Muslims should go through the Shari'ah courts.
"Cheap."
That was the word I noticed. Who pays for the running of these courts? Are they subsiduzed by the government? I know that here in Australia some Muslims are pushing for Sharia courts and expect taxpayers to fund them, even though Jewish family courts are paid for by Jews.
After all, there is only so much money Muslims are going to pay to Islamize our societies. We have to pitch in and pay our share too!
Than French Law Court many7 year ago use Islamist law to settle than bitter inhertian fight that was going on for many years than was in and out of french courts. Finality than muslim told the french court about Islamist law and the french court use Islamist Inhertian law to settle the case an it work it never appear again in court as everybody was happy with the outcome.