Sharia law 'could have UK role'



Principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system, the Lord Chief Justice has said.
Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.
However, he said this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts".
Sharia is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe they should live their life.
The Archbishop of Canterbury prompted controversy when he said use of certain aspects of the law "seems unavoidable".

English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish


Inayat Bunglawala
Muslim Council of Britain



Q&A: Sharia law explained

In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel, Lord Phillips said that sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding". Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."
Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.
He added: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.
"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."
'Misunderstood'
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by sharia law, the judge said.

We mustn't allow there to be different laws for different sections of society

Tina, Manchester, UK
Send us your comments


Dr Williams suggested that sharia could play a role in "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution".
Lord Phillips said: "It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion.
"It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."



Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters.
He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.
"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm

Some US courts accept religious court mediation (Christian, Jewish & Islamic) if both parties agree. The same as the comment in that last part of the post.

Sure, for mediation. As long as they aren't in violation of actual law of course.

Exactly. No problem with that at all, if that's what all parties involved agree.

As with last time, all the fuss is simply the result of people not bothering to examine exactly what is being suggested.

If you visit the original article (the link for which has been provided in the first post), you will be able to view a video which shows what exactly the Chief Justice Lord Phillips said.

I think this is stupid on part of Moslem to ask UK Government for imposing Shariah laws, hey, if you are living in a western country, you know that you are doing it by choice and as per the law a Non-Islamic Government will never impose such laws for the benefit of a "religious minority".

Please do not get me wrong I am a Moslem myself.

It wasn't a Muslim who asked for this, bro. If you visit the source of the original article, all will become clear.

What's wrong with different laws for different interest groups? Jews have them, gays too, so why not muslims?

I am just wondering is it a good idea to mix Allah’s Law with those of the man-made western laws?

And is it okay for Non-Muslim nations to impose any Law which is Shaira based?

Yeah, as far as warnings on food stuff, its ok, and wearing hijab or cap its ok, I was not talking about that. However let me get back to original source, I think I missread something. Thanks

Not really. It should only be one law. Nigeria has two law systems (one of them being sharia) going side by side, leading to some weird cases. Fortunately, crime is low in general.

Sharia law can only come into place in an Islamic state anyway, so the UK is ruled out at the moment - I cannot see it becoming an Islamic state for quite some time to be honest. Though, I am all for additional forms of mediation. If the UK can do it for jews, it can do it for muslims.

Edit:

Should note that in sharia law these punishments would apply to muslims only. Just letting you know.

Excellent point Whatsthepoint...the Jewish laws are for Jews and the Muslim laws would be for Muslims and not Non-Muslims (that would be ridiculous). No one should force things on others.

If for example you live in the UK as a vegetarian I believe that is your right and nobody should force you to eat any meats whatsoever. Thats the law of the vegetarian - no animal consumption. Likewise these laws would be offered to those who believe and follow them i.e. the Muslims.

Let the citizens of the West strive to bring peace amongst fellow communities regardless of whatever religion they follow and let us all intend and strive to make the world a peaceful place to live in...do you agree Whatsthepoint?

Sure I do. I just don't think it will ever be that way.