| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
An update on this story. "Church of Scotland backs Islamic sharia law courts," from The Scotsman, October 10:
The Church of Scotland last night welcomed the possibility of introducing sharia law courts in Scotland.
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council, said sharia courts had been unfairly portrayed following the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments in February that it "seems unavoidable" that parts of Islamic sharia law would be adopted in the UK.
Yesterday, The Scotsman revealed the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, based in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, was holding secret talks with lawyers and community groups about setting up sharia courts north of the Border.
Mr Galloway said: "What is being brought to us is not some kind of parallel jurisdiction that replaces our legal system; rather it is a space, within a given community, for disputes to be resolved."
But he added that sharia courts must meet three crucial standards – they must not preclude recourse to the courts, must not break fundamental tenets of the Human Rights Act and the rights of women must be respected.
A tall order. How does he propose to verify those standards are being enforced? And who would oversee the process?
Meanwhile, officials are insisting there are no plans for sharia in Scotland, but the extent to which sharia-based entities of any kind will be sanctioned remains unclear, even if their rulings do not carry the same legal weight as they do in England. "No plan for Islamic law in Scotland, say ministers," from the Times Online, October 9:
Holyrood ministers have denied claims that there are plans to introduce Sharia in Scotland. The Scottish government said that Islamic law had “no jurisdiction” north of the Border, and rejected the prospect of a dual legal system.
The denials came after a report yesterday that the body behind five Sharia courts in England was hoping to establish similar centres in Scotland. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) told The Scotsman that discussions were under way with lawyers and Muslim groups north of the Border. It is thought they intend to set up the courts in Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Such a move would be highly controversial, as critics believe that Sharia discriminates against women. Baron McCluskey, one of Scotland's most senior legal figures, said it would be “daft” for a democratic country to adopt Islamic law.
Indeed.
The MAT runs courts in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and at their own head office in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The courts rule on civil cases such as divorce, domestic violence and financial disputes. Their decisions are enforceable through the county courts and the High Court.
The courts were invested with legal powers by the Arbitration Act 1996. Under the legislation, which applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only, they are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, as long as both parties involved agree to be directed by the court.
The Nationalists began their own version of the Act in June, when the Arbitration Bill Scotland was published to modernise and consolidate legislation, and set up a dispute resolution centre. The administration insisted yesterday that the Bill could not implement Sharia by the back door. A spokesman said that Sharia “has no jurisdiction in Scotland, nor is there any intention or plan to introduce it”.
Posted by Marisol at October 10, 2008 12:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Scary thought: Sooner (probably) or later, the world will not need so much, if any, oil. Then we are going to be stuck with these governments within governments of pockets (growing larger exponentially) of needy Islamics in our faces, and then what will we do? This has got to stop. They will have already transplanted themselves WITH OUR HELP right in the middle of our societies. I was disappointed in Europe. Now I'm getting angry.
Posted by: charlie![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 10, 2008 12:51 AM
If there's a law for me and a law for you; if there's a law for tall people and a law for the short; if there's Leviathan for some and Sharia for others; then there is only the law of the jungle for all.
If sharia is made legitimate for some, then it is or it isn't legitimate. Law shopping makes sense to me only if I don't care about the law but about my willingness to pay the price I feel I should pay for obeying or violating the law, hopping in my shopping from one court to another to find the best bargain for my interests. If it's legitimate for me, then it is or it isn't legitimate on the face of it. What's the question? Of course I'll shop for legal bargains. You? Well, it depends on your identity. That becomes the law itself: no law at all but whimsy.
A law for Muslims, a law for everyone else, and-- the bad news if you don't happen to like me-- a law just for me that I make up as I please.
It's all a matter of violence and the amount of force I can bring to making my law for me against you and them. Frankly, I sorta like it. But I really don't like that you have the same right. To protect myself, then, I have to ensure you don't exercise your right. I can do that if I'm the stronger law than you, and if I can stay ahead of the other guy's law. Could be fun, if only for a short but brutal time.
Posted by: dag at October 10, 2008 1:51 AM
Many people will say, "I'm not a muslim, so it's not going to affect me."
However, once in place, they will then provide a way of resolving financial disputes that can be enforced by real courts. Consider a non-mussulman entering into a contract with a Mohammedan: in the contract, supplied by the Mohammedan and containing a key phrase, "Any disputes regarding this contract will be resolved by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, and their rulings will be binding on both parties."
On the face of it, such a phrase would offer an impartial resolution of any disputes. The bad news for the non-mussulman is that under Shari'a law, a non-mussulman's testimony is not equal to a Mohommadan's testimony. Guess who will have the advantage here? What is even worse is if this non-mussulman happens to be a female, and thus her testimony is worth even less.
None of us should ever be signing contracts containing clauses which have dispute resolution to be judged by a party biased to the other side. What can make it far, far worse is when that party has the legal backing of the state to enforce any resulting judgements.
Few of us would sign contracts containing clauses that have obviously biased clauses such as "Any dispute shall be resolved by the brother of party A, and all his rulings will be binding on both parties." How different would a contract delegating adjudication to a Shari'a court if you were a non-mussulman and the other party was a Mohammedan?
Posted by: Gharkad at October 10, 2008 2:36 AM
I don't want to sound picky, but how does a woman's testimony being worth half that of a man's, "respect the rights" of a woman?
And I won't even get started on the near impossibility of proving rape.
Posted by: Celsius at October 10, 2008 3:02 AM
Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council ...
Any relation to George, who was responsible for the Palestinian flag flying over Dundee City Hall?
Holyrood ministers have denied claims that there are plans to introduce Sharia in Scotland.
Well, they would, wouldn't they? No doubt Al-SNP will be backing the introduction of Sharia law to the hilt.
I belong tae Al-Glasgae, dear auld Al-Glasgae mosque ...
Och aye the al-noo!
Posted by: watling at October 10, 2008 4:44 AM
Is it just me but is there or should there be some inconsistency between Christianity and Islam? And if so: why is it there appears to be so many ‘Christian’ organizations, and in this case the ‘Church of Scotland’, that do not seem to be aware of the glaring and obvious inconsistency? Just asking.
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at October 10, 2008 7:34 AM
I may lose my breakfast.
When Bat Ye'or explains the corruption of Christianity in the Muslim realm during the centuries after the conquests, she lays the blame on the Muslim overlords and their policies of divide-and-conquer and the buying of Bishoprics.
How would she explain this?
Posted by: Cornelius at October 10, 2008 7:50 AM
Now - if the Church of Scotland had a clue, the headline to this would read, instead, 'Church of Scotland battles plan for sharia courts'.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 10, 2008 8:20 AM
The ghost of David Hume must be howling with rage.
And what of William Wallace?
However: one person out of all those quoted, in the article from Times Online, appears to have a glimmer of common sense.
"Baron McCluskey, one of Scotland's most senior legal figures, said it would be “daft” for a democratic country to adopt Islamic law."
Perhaps Baron McCluskey needs to get an invitation to the 'Facing Jihad' conference in Jerusalem in December.
In the meantime: Scottish jihadwatchers, get to work.
McCluskey is your man. He's said it: "it would be daft for a democratic country to adopt Islamic law". And how!!! Get behind him!!
Right now Baron McCluskey needs to be receiving supportive emails, letters and phone calls from all over Britain, but especially from within Scotland, applauding him for telling the plain and simple truth, and explaining why.
Send him Reza Afshari's analysis of the glaring contradictions between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 'Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam'; a study which points out all the ways in which sharia is permanently inimical to, indeed sets out to annihilate, anything that we in the West conceive of as human rights.
Point him to Antoine Fattal's study of the legal status of non-Muslims within Muslim societies. Point him to Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law.
And, one more time, let's remember Scotsman David Hume's lucid exposition of the amorality of Islam, as unearthed by a jihadwatcher 'rublev' four years ago, and shared on this very comments floor. It is brief enough to be included in many a letter to the editor in Scottish newspapers.
Here is the original posting.
"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet [i.e. Mohammed] had really attained a just sentiment of morals?
"Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society.
"No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to;
"and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers [i.e. Muslims]."
David Hume (1711-1776) "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757)
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume%20on%20taste.htm#p4
- Posted by: Rublev at September 4, 2004 1:17 PM
at October 10, 2008 8:36 AM
I have said it before, and I will say it again: There must be only one law for a people, otherwise, the long term tendency is for a law of the one. If everyone is a law unto themselves, it's called anarchy. If you think that it can't happen, watch what happens to a society that undergoes revolution - like Russia, or any other country pulled apart by civil strife. Either the law is upheld, or chaos results. This is a well-intended step off the cliff - a well-intended road into hell for the sake of an ill-defined idea of tolerance.
Tolerance means treating all people the same (justice), but not treating all ideas as equal (nonsense). It focuses on fair and equal treatment of the individual under the law, not bending the law to the warped ideas of another. Canada now has at least 5 separate laws - British Common Law, Napoleonic Law (Quebec), native law (Nunavit), Supreme Court Law (as of 1988, justices may read into the constitution whatever they feel is missing), and the Human Rights Commissions (where, by their own admission, truth and fact are not a defence). So if you don't think that this move is ill-advised, ask any thinking Canadian who has watched this country start to corrupt since our Centennial year, and the election of the Trudeau Liberals.
And the reason that so-called religious authorities can't seem to see the logic of that statement is because first they have forgotten God's law, and second, they have forgotten or no longer care about its application.
Posted by: OolongChung at October 10, 2008 8:36 AM
see also:
Rev Ian Galloway: "Sharia not to be feared"
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Sharia-not-to-be-feared.4578766.jp
at October 10, 2008 10:57 AM
Three crucial standards that Islam and sharia law cannot and will not be able to meet. Islam is a
perverse rule waged under the knife of the sword, or these days bombs, bullets and at some point, WMD. Of course the the Church of Scotistan backs the plan for sharia law. If they did not the poor, down trodden muslims would howl like the babies they are that they are being discriminated against. Islam is discrimination. If it was not so serious and such a danger, the statement about the Human Rights Act and the rights of women ing "protected" could be a joke, but it is far from it. If the muslims love islam and sharia law so much, deport them to an islamic country where they practice their cult in their own ways and continue to kill each other. The warnings were sounded long ago and now, need to heeded more than ever before IT IS TOO LATE. How many canaries in the coal mines do we need? Obviously, alot more!!
at October 10, 2008 11:10 AM
Baron McCluskey, one of Scotland's most senior legal figures, said it would be “daft” for a democratic country to adopt Islamic law.
...............................
Thank you, Baron.
more:
The courts rule on civil cases such as divorce, domestic violence and financial disputes.
..............................
How in Hell can domestic violence be considered a *civil* issue? Domestic violence is a criminal issue here in the States.
more:
But he [Mr Galloway] added that sharia courts must meet three crucial standards – they must not preclude recourse to the courts, must not break fundamental tenets of the Human Rights Act and the rights of women must be respected.
.............................
Well, too late for that. There have already been rulings in disputed inheritance cases in England where female heirs are granted only half of their brothers' share. Women have been urged by the Shari'ah courts into dropping domestic violence claims and remaining with their abusers. And this doesn't even address the pressure many in the Muslim community--especially women--feel in accepting Shari'ah arbitration to begin with.
How soon, do you think, will we start to see non-Muslims pushed into these "courts"? First, non-Muslim wives of Muslim men, then perhaps non-Muslim relatives, and then litigants who live in "Muslim areas". Next stop, full Shari'ah.
What would that look like? Here's an article:
We want to offer sharia law to Britain
Dozens of sharia courts - also known as councils - have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and even schools across Britain. The number of British Muslims using the courts is increasing.
Dr Hasan, who has been presiding over sharia courts in Britain for more than 25 years, argues that British law would benefit from integrating aspects of Islamic personal law into the civil system.
Dr Hasan is open in supporting the severe punishments meted out in countries where sharia law governs the country.
"Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society.
This is why in Saudi Arabia, for example, where these measures are implemented, the crime rate is very, very, low.
If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal."
Once, just only once, if an adulterer IS STONED nobody is going to commit this crime at all.
"We want to offer it to the British society"
According to Baroness Cox (Human Rights Campaigner), “There is no equality before the law between men and women and between Muslims and non-Muslims; and there is no freedom to choose and change religion." [thank you, Baroness]
Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's inter-faith committee, admits that to non-Muslims some laws may seem harsh on women. Those who are married to a man with a number of wives can be treated badly, for instance. But he insists that sharia is an equitable system.
It may mean that a woman married under Islamic law has no legal rights, but the husband is required to pay for everything in marriage and in the case of a divorce all the woman's belongings are hers to keep."
Professor John Marks, author of The West, Islam and Islamism, points out that apostates from Islam can suffer severe punishment, even honour killings.
"There are more violent cases that are being related to people who choose to convert from Islam," he says.
A survey by Policy Exchange found that 36 per cent of young British Muslims believed that a Muslim who converted to another religion should be "punished by death".
"This clearly goes against the laws of our country. If they come to live in this country they should live by our laws," says Prof Marks.
One Muslim claims that sharia courts in Britain are still poorly organised.and she demands that the government should be supporting them to deliver their service more effectively".
................................
Yeah, that's the problem. Britain has to do more to deliver Shari'ah "justice"...
Posted by: gravenimage at October 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Where O where are the spirits of Jonnie Knox, Andrew Melville, George Buchanan, Jenny Geddes, and Samuel Rutherford when we need them? Will someone please throw a stool at this knuckleheaded Dumbdog moderator of the Kirk; and then throw a few pork bangers at the next imam who addresses the General Assembly?
Will some good English allies of the honest cause arise and send old Dhimmi Jugears to the block the way they did with Charlie Stewart back in 1649? [metaphorically speaking].
Dear Scotland, thy name is Ichabod!
For Christ's Crown and Covenant; and the Crown Rights of King Jesus,
Kepha
Let God arise and all his enemies be scattered! (Psalm 68)
Posted by: Kepha at October 10, 2008 2:33 PM
Not in Scotland! The ghosts of my Scottish ancestors are going to start to torment me!
Up and war them all, boys!
Up and war them all
Cue "Scotland the Brave"!
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 10, 2008 9:22 PM
As one person posted on another site, the church of Scotland getting into bed with satan.
There is a massive move out there to destroy Christianity as Christianity stands in the way of the new world order and homosexuality, but I dont know why they bother as the church is doing a far better job of it.
Now let me see, Sharia law, Indian law, Japanese law, aboriginal law and all the rest, yep we can sure see how a country can survive with all these different laws being allowed, OH you say that there will not be other laws allowed, why not??? if not they are discriminating..
Muslims have said that they know that once sharia law is in a country that it will eventually flow over into the countries law.. and if pushed it will become dominate..
Posted by: Gaye at October 11, 2008 3:01 AM
Vote for a party that will reverse Islamization...
Vote Labour, Liberal or Conservative (or SNP) - get same thing: more Islam.
Posted by: Stefcho at October 11, 2008 4:29 AM
I've always thought of Scots as people who valued their freedom and sense of national identity.
Now they are considering giving the keys to their nation, and sense of identity to the muslims...
What would William Wallace say about this?
Posted by: PorkFatRules at October 12, 2008 10:33 AM
There can be only one.
Posted by: MP at October 13, 2008 1:53 PM
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.)