| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Britain will come to regret this, but whether or not it will before it's too late is an open question. More on this story. "Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts," by Abul Taher in The Sunday Times, September 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
Who will be responsible for enforcement now?
It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.” [...]
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Did they wink at domestic violence because of Qur'an 4:34? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
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.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
Except Jewish courts do not rule on the basis of a law that Jews are laboring to impose upon the whole of British society. Sharia courts are. Will Bunglawala address this distinction? Of course not.
Posted by Robert at September 15, 2008 3:33 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I understand how they are being allowed to arbitrate under British law, but could a British attorney explain to me exactly how they are allowed to rule using foreign codes, precedants and penalties, and it be enforceable under British law?
Posted by: Concerned Citizen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 15, 2008 3:57 PM
Pat Condell is the only sane person left in Brittain.
Posted by: alien84 at September 15, 2008 3:57 PM
"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."
Horsefeathers!
In the matter of inheritance, of those who die intestate, English Common Law mandates the equitable distribution of all assets, taking into account the interests of all surviving grandchildren.
Sharia effectively disposesses the grandchildren of the female line. So who are they going to sue when they reach the age of majority? Why us of course! The long-suffering taxpayers. They will retain lawyers to tell us we should not have allowed this to happen to them.
Inheritance, and child custody, are not just civil matters. They are a public good. And they should not be assailed by religious bigots.
Posted by: Monty at September 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Pat Condell is a loose canon who is only amusing when he agrees with you. He says nothing different about Islam than he says about any other organized religion, or religion itself. Rosie O'Donnell is as sane and lucid as Pat.
http://dotsub.com/view/160b6508-e03d-4c2b-b7ee-91d89879fbb3
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 4:08 PM
Regardless of what you think of Pat Condell's atheism, he makes one point impossible to argue with:
"My freedom is more important than your faith."
at September 15, 2008 4:17 PM
Regardless of what you think of Pat Condell's atheism, he makes one point impossible to argue with: "My freedom is more important than your faith."
Actually, I don't recall, at least in the American Constitution, an ordered listing of the prioritization of values of our various freedoms, nor of the specific being of less value than the generic. Perhaps the Brits do it differently. His freedom of speech, or my freedom of religion, was not my point, however. His being listed as "the only sane person left in Britain," when his lucidity is clearly lacking due to his inability to differentiate, was the point.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 15, 2008 4:35 PM
'Pat Condell is the only sane person left in Brittain.'
I think not. Melanie Phillips, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali,Michael Gove, Rowan Atkinson.
Posted by: johndoe at September 15, 2008 5:08 PM
So with the inclusive, tolerant parallel court system, it seems that non-Muslim men are punished for domestic violence crimes, whereas Muslim men are not.
This is pretty dumbfounding. Doesn't anyone there see that, at least in this respect, they are all living under Sharia law?
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 15, 2008 5:28 PM
I'm still shaking my head in disbelief. Since when does a marginal "community" get to decide that a violent crime isn't a crime at all, and should be "arbitrated"? And since when does the rest of the body politic let them get away with it?
Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at September 15, 2008 5:31 PM
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
The men were given a second chance to continue beating their wives in accordance with Sharia (Qur'an 4:34).
The ultimate problem with Sharia, which is simply the codification of Islam itself, is that human rights are allocated according to gender and creed. It is a failed 7th century political, social, economic and psychological ideology that needs to be expunged from the global body politic if there is ever to be hope of world peace.
The House of Lords, being equivalent to the United States Supreme Court in judicial function, needs to be reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's famous remarks from his tome, "The River War":
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.Posted by: SaracensAtTheGatesIndividual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
at September 15, 2008 5:36 PM
It can be seen already from this basicly superficial article where the Muslims intend to go with this. The Arbitration Act 1996 allows only for civil cases to be resolved by a tribunal and only when both parties agree. It does NOT provide for criminal cases to be prosecuted by anyone other than the State Legal System. The Jewish courts (Beth Din) that the Muslims love to bring into these stories can only arbitrate civil cases by mediation; that is, they can only help people in dispute reach agreement, they cannot impose settlements.
However, twice in this article we see the Muslims stretching facts to suit themselves, firstly the mention of Domestic Violence and secondly in their plan to handle more "criminal" cases in future. As already stated, the Arbitration Act 1996 does NOT contain provision for private courts to try criminal case. Ergo, someone is telling porkies (pork pies = lies) to big-up their claims.
Posted by: Tziona at September 15, 2008 6:05 PM
There are so many bad, bad places this can go. There are, of course, the issues with domestic violence. And inheritances.
But how about rape? How will that be handled? And will honor killings be deemed a "Muslim civil matter?" How about adultery? Will there be stonings proscribed for that? And how will homosexuals now be treated in Britain? What if a non-Muslim becomes involved with a Muslim? Who will hear those cases? Has anyone in the U.K. actually though that out? I'm thinking.... not so much.
Such an unpleasant can of worms has been opened all in the name of "appeasement."
Posted by: s at September 15, 2008 6:24 PM
Unbelievable.
Giving sharia "courts" the right to settle domestic violence cases is a bit like giving the fox the key to the hen house.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at September 15, 2008 7:11 PM
Hah--looks like the Brits will have to get used to a whole new plethora of islamic traditions.
Are the Brits ready to embrace Honor Killings?
What happens the next time an infidel insults the grand poobah "prophet" mo? Will these Sharia courts be tied in with Jordan's case against offenders of islam?
Oh, and the next time terrorists run amok in the streets of London, which court gets to hear their case? Of course, if it's the Sharia court, the terrorists might finally be judged by their peers!
Posted by: PorkFatRules at September 15, 2008 7:19 PM
Let us not say they didn't warn us:
"But in some Muslim countries punishments handed out under the legal system have included beheadings, public floggings and thieves’ hands being chopped off.
Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of Hijaz College, who has sat in judgment at a number of the tribunals, said British society was not ready for such punishments.
**** But he added that if society became more ‘civilised’ then those who broke the law should expect to receive the highest degree of punishment" ****
Posted by: Silvester at September 15, 2008 7:22 PM
The Islamic community can bring fierce threats of financial ruin, destruction of the family and of course physical violence to make sure both parties 'agree' to this sharia arbitration. I am of course speaking of women. What a cruel trap for a woman who decides she wants to break free of strict Islamic controls - a dozen neighbors can sign affidavits that she is an unfit mother and she could lose her children - if she doesn't agree to sharia arbitration. This is just an example.
Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 15, 2008 7:23 PM
Once again, England has given up more of her long term freedoms under the false law of sharia. As more inroads are made in Euurope and England, cannnot we see the danger of going down the same path? Vote for obumma if you want this in the U.S. in the future. I plan not to. This is a very sad day for all of us who love true freedom as it is spelled out in our constitution.sharia law is just more stealth jihad and it saddens me to see large parts of the west knuckle under to this filthy, blood crazed cult run by murdering islamofacists. The only thing they undertsand is
warfare, and violence. Covert, or they will kill you. "Vigilant and true will I remain, for the good of GOD and Country. "For I am one of the keepers of the watchtowers over Jerusalem and what I see breaks my heart but not my reslove."
allah is no prophet,no god, he is a nothing to me, and never will be. Damn the liberals and those who want diaolgue with the islamofacists.
Just ask Israel how well that works!
at September 15, 2008 7:28 PM
Marwan'sDaughter correctly questions:
Since when does a marginal "community" get to decide that a violent crime isn't a crime at all, and should be "arbitrated"?
Marginal indeed. More like a major minority.
It certainly appears that there is minimal appreciation for the fragile rights that the Western world's ancestors fought and died for.
What the UK has done is give power to an alien and anti-Western group of minorities whose only intent is to circumvent the existing status quo with a supremacy based "theology".
Once these sharia "courts" are fully ingrained with power when will they demand to settle non-muslim legal affairs and actually challenge the existing government?
Not long because once an inch is given 25 miles is then demanded!
What is most sickening is these precious and uniquely Western rights are being forfeited without a grumble or mumble (let alone a damn good fight!) by an apathetic and despicable Western society.
Wake up people!
Posted by: Aiken Bryce at September 15, 2008 8:22 PM
I put up my hand to support courts or Jewish courts should exist, since the precedence of the Jewish courts has allowed the possibility of the existance of the sharia courts.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 15, 2008 9:52 PM
I cannot believe I am witnessing this in my lifetime. It's like a nightmare and I cannot wake from it.
Posted by: Mo at September 16, 2008 12:34 AM
Voltaire - you missed the comment above in which the Jewish courts are discussed. They are mediators...they do not impose law. This post is about the Muslim courts having the force of law behind them, which is entirely different.
Posted by: Godefroi at September 16, 2008 11:06 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)