Sharia law is accepted in the UK

[ray245]

Islamic sharia courts in Britain are now 'legally binding'
By Matthew Hickley
Last updated at 8:07 PM on 14th September 2008


Comments (0) Add to My Stories

Islamic sharia law courts in Britain are exploiting a little-known legal clause to make their verdicts officially binding under UK law in cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence.

A new network of courts in five major cities is hearing cases where Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional Sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.

Officials behind the new system claim to have dealt with more than 100 cases since last summer, including six involving domestic violence which is a criminal rather than civil offence, and said they hoped to take over growing numbers of 'smaller' criminal cases in future.

The revelations sparked uproar yesterday, with warnings that the fundamental principle of equal treatment for all - the bedrock of British justice - was being gravely undermined.

Critics fear Britain's Islamic hard-liners will now try to make sharia law the dominant legal system in Muslim neighbourhoods, and warn that women often receive less favourable treatment at the hands of the traditional Islamic courts.


The Archbishop of Canterbury sparked controversy when suggesting recognition of Sharia Law seemed 'unavoidable'
The issue erupted into a major controversy earlier this year after the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams claimed publicly that formal recognition of sharia law 'seemed unavoidable', and Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips gave his backing to the use of Islamic courts to deal with family, marital and financial disputes.

Sharia courts have operated unofficially for years among Britain's Muslim communities but until now their rulings could not be enforced, relying instead on parties agreeing voluntarily.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal panels, set up by lawyer Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, are now operating in London, Bradford, Manchester, Birmingham and Nuneaton, with more planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Mr 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.'

Cases handled by the courts so far include Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours, he said.


But as well as civil disputes they have also handled six cases of domestic violence.

In all six cases, he said, sharia judges ordered husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders, but issued no further punishment.


All the women subsequently withdrew their complaints to the police, who halted investigations.

Mr Siddiqi claimed the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

But critics fear Muslim women victims will be pressured into accepting a sharia court settlement, and husbands will escape with lighter punishments than in a mainstream criminal court.

In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter - in keeping with sharia law.

In a mainstream court all siblings would have been treated equally.

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, condemned the latest development as 'appalling.'

'I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.'


Shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'These tribunals have no place in passing binding decisions in divorce or criminal justice hearings.

'Far from handling more criminal cases. They should be handling none at all.

'British law is absolute and must remain so.'



More...
Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge
Sharia car insurance: For the first time, Muslims can buy policies in line with Islamic law



Muslim groups pointed out that Jewish Beth Din courts have handled civil legal cases for more than 100 years in Britain on a similar basis, and now operate under the 1996 Arbitration Act.


Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'We support these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.'

The Ministry of Justice said: 'Sharia law is not part of the law of England and Wales, and the Government has no intention of making any change that would conflict with British laws and values.

'In all arbitrations, decisions will be enforceable by the English courts if the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act are satisfied. If any decisions by these Tribunals were illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, they would not be enforceable.'

A recent survey by the Centre for Social Cohesion found 40 per cent of Britain's Muslim students want the introduction of sharia law in the UK, while 33 per cent want a worldwide Islamic sharia-based government.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti ... l?ITO=1490


This sucks...I was just debating this motion a few days ago...and to think that the idea of secularism is so fragile is disappointing...

[Shinova]

No way.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This kind of decision is something I'd expect in the United States (except Christian). I mean, are they saying that if you're muslim then it's sort of OK to smack your wife around?

Also, what the fuck are Islamic insurance standards?

[Sea Skimmer]

So if you AGREE to use the court as a binding arbitrator you are ruled over sharia law, so what? In almost all western nations binding arbitration is allowed, and as long as both parties agree ANYONE can be the arbitrator and use any standard they want. However in the event of criminal cases, at least in the US, the police always still have the option to prosecute in criminal court, abet if the victim will not go along with it the odds of a conviction are low.

Nothing is particularly unreasonable about this system if people want it; the real question is how British courts intend to handle enforcement when one party or the other fails to adhere to binding arbitration in cases when the ruling is in distinct conflict with British common law. If they intend to enforce sharia based rulings which are in direct conflict… then behold Britian would be ruled by sharia law to a limited degree, which would be fucked up, but that’s yet to be seen.

[Dominus Atheos]

So if you AGREE to use the court as a binding arbitrator you are ruled over sharia law, so what? In almost all western nations binding arbitration is allowed, and as long as both parties agree ANYONE can be the arbitrator and use any standard they want. However in the event of criminal cases, at least in the US, the police always still have the option to prosecute in criminal court, abet if the victim will not go along with it the odds of a conviction are low.

Nothing is particularly unreasonable about this system if people want it; the real question is how British courts intend to handle enforcement when one party or the other fails to adhere to binding arbitration in cases when the ruling is in distinct conflict with British common law. If they intend to enforce sharia based rulings which are in direct conflict… then behold Britian would be ruled by sharia law to a limited degree, which would be fucked up, but that’s yet to be seen.

In America at least, if you sign a contract to agree to arbitration you can't back out of it. So if a husband forces his wife to sign something saying they will resolve all disputes in this sharia court, the wife can't back out of it later. That may be different in the UK though.

[Sea Skimmer]

In America at least, if you sign a contract to agree to arbitration you can't back out of it. So if a husband forces his wife to sign something saying they will resolve all disputes in this sharia court, the wife can't back out of it later. That may be different in the UK though.

I've never heard of a marriage contract which forced someone into binding arbitration for any and all unspecified issues, I have heard of ones that called for normal arbitration services which basically amount to advice to be used. I’m not sure that a blanket binding arbitration document would even be legal.

[Dominus Atheos]

In America at least, if you sign a contract to agree to arbitration you can't back out of it. So if a husband forces his wife to sign something saying they will resolve all disputes in this sharia court, the wife can't back out of it later. That may be different in the UK though.

I've never heard of a marriage contract which forced someone into binding arbitration for any and all unspecified issues, I have heard of ones that called for normal arbitration services which basically amount to advice to be used. I’m not sure that a blanket binding arbitration document would even be legal.

A lot of jobs now require you to sign something saying you won't take any disputes you have with the company to a real court, but will submit to the decision of a so called "arbitrator" of the companies choosing. The (united states) supreme court ruled this practice legal, so it's a valid concern for marriages. (in the united states anyway, obviously this ruling carries no weight in britain)

[JBG]

Most commercial contracts have a "forum" clause; that is the jurisdiction in which any dispute has to be contested. They may go further and require arbitration rather than a court but all jurisdictions differ more or less. That is simply good business practice where deals cross jurisdictional boundaries as it provides some certainty as to processes and outcomes in, amongst others, a dollar sense.

Family law gives me some pause as standards vary widely in what is a human rights rather than commercial jurisdiction. I do not support the use of such arbitration with family law.

With domestic violence, forget it. The criminal law is not an opt in, opt out concept. Bashing your wife should be punished under the laws of the country in which it takes place. Period.

[Ford Prefect]

So if a husband forces his wife to sign something saying they will resolve all disputes in this sharia court, the wife can't back out of it later. That may be different in the UK though.

What about duress? In Australia, a contract cannot be held as valid if it was made under duress. I have this strong feeling that this would also apply in Britain, given the origins of the Australian judiciary; which would mean that a wife could technically back out of it later, though in actuality there are other factors which would probably result in her not backing out. I'd be quite surprised if America actually found a contract made under duress legal.

[xerex]

legally this is nothing new. a said before in arbitration as long as both parties agree ANY rules or system of law can be used, and will be legally binding.

as for the Islamic car insurance I think its has something to do with regular car insurance being based on gambling principles. Islamic insurance is based on cooperative principles rather than risk.

[xerex]

With domestic violence, forget it. The criminal law is not an opt in, opt out concept. Bashing your wife should be punished under the laws of the country in which it takes place. Period.

seconded.

[PeZook]

Any reasonably sane system of law would obviously decree that an arbitration decision illegal under common law isn't binding ; Otherwise, it would lead to all sorts of fucked-up nonsense, like companies writing their own labor code which does not have a minimum wage, and then forcing all employees to sign contracts which say "You are now working under Buy 'n Large legal code, bitch, and have no right to sue us in a real court!"

My guess is that those arbitration decisions are only "legally binding" when they concern civil issues not regulated by criminal law, so a Muslim woman who is abused by her husband can still press charges, whatever the Sharia court says. The only problem is convincing people to do that when they are purposely held ignorant.

Of course, we don't actually know how many of these arbitration cases are about domestic abuse, as opposed to stupid everyday shit people get involved in every day and just don't want to bother with "real" civil courts.

[Darth Wong]

So if a husband forces his wife to sign something saying they will resolve all disputes in this sharia court, the wife can't back out of it later. That may be different in the UK though.

What about duress? In Australia, a contract cannot be held as valid if it was made under duress. I have this strong feeling that this would also apply in Britain, given the origins of the Australian judiciary; which would mean that a wife could technically back out of it later, though in actuality there are other factors which would probably result in her not backing out. I'd be quite surprised if America actually found a contract made under duress legal.

Exactly: if you force someone to sign a contract, that contract is null and void. Same goes for contracts made with illegal purpose; they are not legally binding. So if Mr. Douchebag hires a hitman to kill his wife and the hitman pretends to agree but then reports him to the police, Mr. Douchebag cannot sue him for breach of contract, because the contract was for an illegal purpose.

There is no contract anyone can sign which would legally allow a husband to violently beat his wife, for example.

[Solauren]

I've said this before, but never on here. Forgive me if it sounds bad.

"If you don't like the laws of the country you are moving to, or are not willing to follow them, then Don't move there. You have left your former country behind, including it's laws."

This quite frankly, IMHO also applies to religious laws that are not on the books in the new country. Sharia (or however it's spelt) law is not the legal code of the UK, so it should be ignored. Anyone that doesn't like that should be deported.

And I saw this regardless of the nation of origin, religion, or legal code in question. Period.

If i were to go to the US or UK and I didn't like the laws, I should leave.

[Darth Wong]

I've said this before, but never on here. Forgive me if it sounds bad.

"If you don't like the laws of the country you are moving to, or are not willing to follow them, then Don't move there. You have left your former country behind, including it's laws."

This quite frankly, IMHO also applies to religious laws that are not on the books in the new country. Sharia (or however it's spelt) law is not the legal code of the UK, so it should be ignored. Anyone that doesn't like that should be deported.

And I saw this regardless of the nation of origin, religion, or legal code in question. Period.

If i were to go to the US or UK and I didn't like the laws, I should leave.

It's not necessarily a matter of liking or disliking the laws. Laws do not govern all cultural behaviour; only certain extreme types of behaviour which society has deemed so unacceptable that they must be prevented by governmental coercion. For lesser breaches of conduct, the laws are silent, which is where binding arbitration may enter the picture.

[The Guid]

So if you AGREE to use the court as a binding arbitrator you are ruled over sharia law, so what? In almost all western nations binding arbitration is allowed, and as long as both parties agree ANYONE can be the arbitrator and use any standard they want. However in the event of criminal cases, at least in the US, the police always still have the option to prosecute in criminal court, abet if the victim will not go along with it the odds of a conviction are low.

Nothing is particularly unreasonable about this system if people want it; the real question is how British courts intend to handle enforcement when one party or the other fails to adhere to binding arbitration in cases when the ruling is in distinct conflict with British common law. If they intend to enforce sharia based rulings which are in direct conflict… then behold Britian would be ruled by sharia law to a limited degree, which would be fucked up, but that’s yet to be seen.

No its way more fucked up than that. Now that these courts exist it is now possible to take a matter involving domestic abuse, or division of property to sharia court.

Sure, anyt party can refuse. But what if all your faithful family say you should go to the Sharia court? What then? Do you show how irreligious you are and request a British court? Hell no, people will cave in, especially the women for whom Sharia law is so shitty, because it is very easy to pressure them.

Before this, a British judge under British law would HAVE to see the case. Meaning that fairness was far more likely. Now property will be divided to sons unfairly and domestic violence will be solved with marriages remaining intact, every fucking time, because thats Sharia.

The recognition, even in passing, of these aspects of Sharia in British law is simply outrageous. I don't use that word lightly. It is unethical, it is immoral, it is downright misogynystic and patronising. And its a pile of shit. And even for a moment suggesting it is not will incur very sharp criticism from me.

[Zac Naloen]

If anything got ruled by this court that was against National Law I'm pretty sure it would get over ruled, this is like a lower level court making a judgement, who ever said there was no room for appeal?

And if it led to an honour killing? Those who commited the honour killing would get tried for murder.

And frankly, I think it's fair to say that if any of these lead to a ruling of an honour killing/whatever other fucked up things Sharia has they probably would have happened without an arbitration panel.

[Darth Wong]

So if you AGREE to use the court as a binding arbitrator you are ruled over sharia law, so what? In almost all western nations binding arbitration is allowed, and as long as both parties agree ANYONE can be the arbitrator and use any standard they want. However in the event of criminal cases, at least in the US, the police always still have the option to prosecute in criminal court, abet if the victim will not go along with it the odds of a conviction are low.

Nothing is particularly unreasonable about this system if people want it; the real question is how British courts intend to handle enforcement when one party or the other fails to adhere to binding arbitration in cases when the ruling is in distinct conflict with British common law. If they intend to enforce sharia based rulings which are in direct conflict… then behold Britian would be ruled by sharia law to a limited degree, which would be fucked up, but that’s yet to be seen.

No its way more fucked up than that. Now that these courts exist it is now possible to take a matter involving domestic abuse, or division of property to sharia court.

Sure, anyt party can refuse. But what if all your faithful family say you should go to the Sharia court? What then? Do you show how irreligious you are and request a British court? Hell no, people will cave in, especially the women for whom Sharia law is so shitty, because it is very easy to pressure them.

Before this, a British judge under British law would HAVE to see the case. Meaning that fairness was far more likely. Now property will be divided to sons unfairly and domestic violence will be solved with marriages remaining intact, every fucking time, because thats Sharia.

The recognition, even in passing, of these aspects of Sharia in British law is simply outrageous. I don't use that word lightly. It is unethical, it is immoral, it is downright misogynystic and patronising. And its a pile of shit. And even for a moment suggesting it is not will incur very sharp criticism from me.

Does it occur to you that if this enormous social pressure you speak of exists, then it doesn't matter whether Sharia courts can be legally recognized binding arbitrators? They could rule even without legal sanction, and this enormous inescapable pressure you speak of would force compliance. Obviously, it is not that powerful, otherwise they would not need to seek legal recognition of the process.

[The Guid]

If anything got ruled by this court that was against National Law I'm pretty sure it would get over ruled,

If you read the article in full you will see that something did go against British law. The division of assets from a father's estate was divided so that the daughters got half of what the sons got. This would not have happened in a British court.

Does it occur to you that if this enormous social pressure you speak of exists, then it doesn't matter whether Sharia courts can be legally recognized binding arbitrators? They could rule even without legal sanction, and this enormous inescapable pressure you speak of would force compliance. Obviously, it is not that powerful, otherwise they would not need to seek legal recognition of the process.

Again. look at these situations again. One of these cases is domestic violence. If a woman decided to report her husband for domestic violence she has taken a brave step, and one that may well not be approved of in her community. Now in the old system this would autmoatically go to a court without the Sharia backing, or the often socially very conservative Islamic elders making the judgement calls. Once the ball was in motion, there was nothing that could be done to keep it "in the family".

Now it is possible that it is reported to the police and then it is passed on to the sharia courts, because they are "fairer" to Muslims, or some other social pressure. There is a model to which women can abide if pressured to, one that did not exist before.

I am not saying every ruling will be wrong, but that is makes it easier to keep rather disturbing elements of some aspects of Islamic society away from the prying eyes of what I think is a fairer, more decent secular state. All in the name of "community cohesion" or "multiculturalism" or whatever alter these women are being sacrificed on.

Perhaps my tone earlier was slightly wrong, and I apologise for it being quite so damning in my tone to a fellow board member. I don't retract the general focus that this is a very bad idea.

Note that all six cases of domestic abuse have kept the marriage going and haven't made the husbands do anything more than take classes. I think domestic violence often needs a far more forceful hand behind it.

Of course it was possible to cheat justice in a British court before this, but I think this makes it easier and for that reason I think it is a terrible idea done for all the worst reasons imaginable.

[Zac Naloen]

If you read the article in full you will see that something did go against British law. The division of assets from a father's estate was divided so that the daughters got half of what the sons got. This would not have happened in a British court.

and where does it say it will be not be superceded by UK law?

The daughters need to actually find a solicitor and take it to court, it doesn't happen automatically.

[The Guid]

If you read the article in full you will see that something did go against British law. The division of assets from a father's estate was divided so that the daughters got half of what the sons got. This would not have happened in a British court.

and where does it say it will be not be superceded by UK law?

In the article, if you read it. They are "enforcable" under UK law.

The daughters need to actually find a solicitor and take it to court, it doesn't happen automatically.

Well then its all their fault then.

[PeZook]

Uh, Guid...this is a civil law matter, and civil law is not like criminal law: a lot of disputes can be handled by personal agreements in civil law. Inheritance is only split officially by a court if there is no last will and the family can't agree on who gets what.

The arbitration "court" probably simply gave an opinion on the matter according to Sharia law, and since both sides agreed to abide by the decision, it's as if they signed an agreement splitting the inheritance this way. It's not against the law, that is civil law does not forbid sharing of inheritance that way.

The daughter probably won't be able to challenge the verdict, though, since I bet she signed a proper agreement agreeing to abide by the arbitrator's decision. If her father abused her, however, the matter would look quite differently.

[Zac Naloen]

In the article, if you read it. They are "enforcable" under UK law.

Which is completely fucking different.

Agreeing to outcome is like signing a contract. Do it and you are fucked.

[Master of Ossus]

A lot of jobs now require you to sign something saying you won't take any disputes you have with the company to a real court, but will submit to the decision of a so called "arbitrator" of the companies choosing. The (united states) supreme court ruled this practice legal, so it's a valid concern for marriages. (in the united states anyway, obviously this ruling carries no weight in britain)

But after the arbitrator enforces US (or state) employment law. You're not changing the substantive law that is applied to your case: merely the forum. Also, unless I'm very much mistaken, binding arbitration can be appealed the same way that a court case can be for, among other reasons, error in application of the law.

[Darth Wong]

Again. look at these situations again. One of these cases is domestic violence. If a woman decided to report her husband for domestic violence she has taken a brave step, and one that may well not be approved of in her community. Now in the old system this would autmoatically go to a court without the Sharia backing, or the often socially very conservative Islamic elders making the judgement calls. Once the ball was in motion, there was nothing that could be done to keep it "in the family".

Now it is possible that it is reported to the police and then it is passed on to the sharia courts, because they are "fairer" to Muslims, or some other social pressure. There is a model to which women can abide if pressured to, one that did not exist before.

Oh bullshit; the police will not "pass on" criminal cases to the sharia courts or pressure women to accept sharia rulings.