/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Muslims rebuffed over sharia courts



Uthman
10-12-2008, 05:47 PM
Gordon Brown's new minister for race relations has attacked sharia courts, insisting that the Muslim community in Britain is not “advanced” enough to have its own legal system.

Sadiq Khan, whose comments will have added impact because he is a Muslim himself, has also warned that the growing number of tribunals based on Islamic codes could entrench discrimination against women.

Khan, who became minister for community cohesion in the government reshuffle this month, said: “The burden is on those who want to open up these courts to persuade us why they should do it.”

His comments contrast with those of figures such as Lord Phillips, the lord chief justice, who said in July that Islamic law could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said the establishment of sharia courts in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In a wide-ranging interview on race and immigration, Khan, 38, the Labour MP for Tooting, south London, also: Warned that an economic downturn could fuel ethnic tensions. Demanded an increase in benefits for immigrants with larger families. Admitted that government anti-terror laws had caused “problems” in race relations. Called on public bodies to cut translation services to encourage immigrants to learn English.

Khan’s outspoken remarks on sharia courts are likely to cause the most controversy.

The Sunday Times last month revealed that the government had quietly sanctioned a network of sharia judges, empowering them to issue legally binding rulings on disputes including finance, divorce, inheritance and domestic violence.

Supporters of sharia courts point to the “beth din” courts long used by the Jewish community to resolve family disputes. However, Khan said sharia courts could not be compared with the beth din.

“I have seen good examples of Jewish courts,” he said. “I would be very concerned about sharia courts applying in the UK. I don’t think there is that level of sophistication that there is in Jewish law.

“Jewish law has a long history. There are not the same areas of concern that there are with sharia law. At some stage in the future I do not rule out the possibility that the Muslim diaspora in this country may be advanced enough. But now is not the right time.”

Khan said he was aware such blunt criticism of his own community would lead to controversy, but he insisted: “Mass migration [among Asian Muslims] started 30 years ago. Jewish migration started 500 years ago.

“It sends the wrong message at a time when I am trying to say to all citizens, ‘learn English, get involved in your community’.

“You should practise your faith, eat halal food, fast, have planning permission for a mosque, be buried in the Islamic way, you can have your son circumcised. What is the purpose – what is the loophole that sharia courts are closing?”

Khan said he believed the tribunals would only exacerbate the unfair treatment of Muslim women.

“There is unequal bargaining power between men and women in this country,” he said. “Women can be abused and persuaded to do things that they shouldn’t have to do.”

Until now, Khan, formerly a human rights lawyer, has perhaps been best known as the MP who was bugged by the police when he visited a constituent in prison.

He told how the incident, first reported by The Sunday Times in February, led to arguments with Muslim friends. “People said: ‘You have been lecturing us and even you are being bugged. What chance have we got?’”

Related Links


Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Uthman
10-12-2008, 05:52 PM
A different side to the coin. Comments, please?
Reply

barney
10-12-2008, 06:07 PM
I'd agree with him, with the exception of saying that the Bethdin courts were superior. The Bethdin courts are also not needed or wanted or democratic.
Reply

Uthman
10-12-2008, 06:15 PM
Thanks Barney. Are you aware of the English arbitration law which states that two sides can agree to a third party to arbitrate in a dispute?

What's your take on that? Do you think that law should be abolished?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
aamirsaab
10-12-2008, 06:37 PM
:sl:
Since this country is not an Islamic state, we shouldn't (and cannot) have sharia law in the UK (unless of course it's the existing stuff, which everyone is fine with anywho cus it's stuff like nikah etc - no actual laws). First and foremost, we have to get practicing Islam properly. If we can't even do that, then there is little point in sharia law in the UK - we must lead by example, then others will follow.
Reply

Uthman
10-12-2008, 06:44 PM
:sl: aamirsaab,

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
(unless of course it's the existing stuff, which everyone is fine with anywho cus it's stuff like nikah etc - no actual laws).
It's the existing stuff that we're on about here, and everyone is definitely not fine with it.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with it. :)

:w:
Reply

aamirsaab
10-12-2008, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
:sl: aamirsaab,



It's the existing stuff that we're on about here, and everyone is definitely not fine with it.
....
Oh, I thought they were referring to adding more sharia laws into the UK. Hmm, I'll have to let this one unfold a bit more before I can make any more comments.
Reply

Uthman
10-12-2008, 07:02 PM
It's pretty much the same thing that has been unfolding since February this year. You know...the whole Archbishop of Canterbury thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
Reply

barney
10-12-2008, 08:18 PM
Yup, but i dont agree with it applying to the case of Sharia.

Settling dispuits through Marriage counsellers or soliciters or a discussion group isnt the same as settling dispuits according to the immutable word of the creator of the universe and all universes not yet known

Marriage counsellers can discuss and debate things, they allow for progress (change).
Sharia cant be discussed or debated or progress.
It also represents in my veiw a return to the morals of the ancients, always a bad thing.
Reply

جوري
10-12-2008, 08:34 PM
It will be met with litany, but eventually it will settle. I believe that as per prophecy
"You will invade the Arabian Peninsula and God will grant it. Then Persia and God will grant it. Then you shall invade Ar-Rum (Europe) and God will grant it. Then you shall attack the Antichrist and God shall give him to you"The Messenger of God was then asked "which of the two cities will be conquered first - Constantinople or Rome?" and the Holy Prophet PBUH replied : " The city of Heraclius (Constantinople) will be conquered FIRST"

so I think this is actually a auspicate of Muslim rule even if it starts small..
If there will be 'injustice' toward women, I assume it is because someone didn't study jurisprudence properly or are themselves wicked and wish to deny women their due rights not that it is anything with sharia law itself. I reckon someone like Britteny spears whose paying thousands to he rx- husband in alimony would be thrilled with sharia law, which would not only guarantee he can't touch her money but forces him to pay alimony even if he makes the smaller income ..

the west is the last to talk of injustice, aside from that, they really should concentrate on their own affairs with their moral degeneracy and economic collapse..

I am not sure why everything is met with so much resistance, you'd think they were living in some sort of utopia to shake their disapproving fingers.. I disagree that we have to wait for the rise of the Muslim empire.. I believe to get there we must take small steps, and this is a good small step!

:w:
Reply

Uthman
10-12-2008, 08:48 PM
Hi barney,

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Yup, but i dont agree with it applying to the case of Sharia.

Settling dispuits through Marriage counsellers or soliciters or a discussion group isnt the same as settling dispuits according to the immutable word of the creator of the universe and all universes not yet known

Marriage counsellers can discuss and debate things, they allow for progress (change).
Sharia cant be discussed or debated or progress.
It also represents in my veiw a return to the morals of the ancients, always a bad thing.
Sure, but why should any of that matter if both parties agree to using Sharia as a mediator? Shouldn't they be free to make that choice?

Regards
Reply

barney
10-12-2008, 08:55 PM
Then they should fill their boots, if you acknowlage the expression. But the decison should not be recognised in English Law. It should hold the same weight as two neighbours who have a chat over a cup of tea with a mutual freind and their freind decideds what they should do.

I dont want to start waxing large about womens rights and injustices because I'm certain I can use all that blather for another thread. Simply put, special interest groups should have no say in actual enforcable law. Otherwise My religion says I can rob banks with Impunity and i'm going to be tried by the high preist. The high preist is my Dad and the jury is my pet dog. Dont diss it. Its my religion.
Reply

Amadeus85
10-12-2008, 09:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Then they should fill their boots, if you acknowlage the expression. But the decison should not be recognised in English Law. It should hold the same weight as two neighbours who have a chat over a cup of tea with a mutual freind and their freind decideds what they should do.

I dont want to start waxing large about womens rights and injustices because I'm certain I can use all that blather for another thread. Simply put, special interest groups should have no say in actual enforcable law. Otherwise My religion says I can rob banks with Impunity and i'm going to be tried by the high preist. The high preist is my Dad and the jury is my pet dog. Dont diss it. Its my religion.
No one of us thought so far that choosing that muslim as MP was a great trick made by the labour. The muslim MP seems to be completely assimilated, more brittish than native Brittons. But as a muslim it is easier for him to say such things about sharia law which was expected from the Goverment.
Sometimes we forget that people who built such great country like England cant be stupid. Moreover, they are very clever men(except some leftist radicals) and this may be one of these examples.
Reply

جوري
10-12-2008, 09:26 PM
Shouldn't you use examples from actual religious laws before coming up with your usual inventive scenarios?
The law you so enjoy was written by a bunch of white fogies in funny wigs and pantyhose and that for some inexplicable reason is better than divine law? and we have all seen just how wonderful it is indeed!

Only two religions have jurisprudence as part of creed -- Jesus didn't hang around long enough to let you how to run a country politically or in a judicial manner..
Islam did, and worked rather well for centuries and insha'Allah it will be implemented again!

If civil suits don't concern you, on the account you are not Muslim, I am not sure why it is so upsetting?
England has imposed its stupidity and imperialism on the world long enough, it is about time they gave something back.. it would also be nice if they could just shut up about it.
Talk about a worthless little island I'd love to flick off with my index finger-- or the finger next to it!
Reply

wth1257
10-13-2008, 03:24 AM
[QUOTE=Skye Ephémérine;1024857]Shouldn't you use examples from actual religious laws before coming up with your usual inventive scenarios?
The law you so enjoy was written by a bunch of white fogies in funny wigs and pantyhose and that for some inexplicable reason is better than divine law? and we have all seen just how wonderful it is indeed![QUOTE]

Actually, If British Law is anything like American law it may have origionated with 18th century enlightenment thinkers, but it's present state is the result of years and years of popular debate, discourse, and collective decision makeing that has fashioned a government more or less in line with the will of the sovreign popular.

You may consider "divine law" better than law from the democratic process, however the latter enjoys a universal accesability that the former does not and is ammendable to the will of the people.

Only two religions have jurisprudence as part of creed -- Jesus didn't hang around long enough to let you how to run a country politically or in a judicial manner..
Islam did, and worked rather well for centuries and insha'Allah it will be implemented again!
Well, if I had to choose between Bush and Mohammad for President I would, without the slightest hesitation, pick Mohammad however you need to be specific which variant of Islamic law you feel worked so well. Islamic law certianly is interesting and very advanced for it's time however I am willing to be any school you pick would have certain components that modern secular people would not like.

If civil suits don't concern you, on the account you are not Muslim, I am not sure why it is so upsetting?
Perhapse he feels uncomftorable with multiple court systems geared to specific religious groups that may further isolate and alienate the British Muslim population from the rest of the country (no idea if that;'s true, just a hunch)

England has imposed its stupidity and imperialism on the world long enough
England has also exported quite a bit of brilliance over the past few centuries. You have them to thank for the computer you are typing on. Particularly an English gay man who ended up killing himself with a poison apple after being forced into hormone treatments via Englands religiously motivated anti-gay laws.



it is about time they gave something back.. it would also be nice if they could just shut up about it.
They have every right to debate their country's court systems.

Talk about a worthless little island I'd love to flick off with my index finger-- or the finger next to it!
How lovely.
Reply

wth1257
10-13-2008, 03:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Hi barney,



Sure, but why should any of that matter if both parties agree to using Sharia as a mediator? Shouldn't they be free to make that choice?

Regards
I certianly understand why some Muslims may wish to do that and I think it's perfectly fair, but why not simply use abrogation?
Reply

جوري
10-13-2008, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wth1257

Actually, If British Law is anything like American law it may have origionated with 18th century enlightenment thinkers, but it's present state is the result of years and years of popular debate, discourse, and collective decision makeing that has fashioned a government more or less in line with the will of the sovreign popular.
Ok!
You may consider "divine law" better than law from the democratic process, however the latter enjoys a universal accesability that the former does not and is ammendable to the will of the people.
Question is what do you know of Shari3a law to speak with such convictions whether or not it is democratic? In fact it is based on a Shura system of consensus. Women were 'voting' so to speak under Islamic law, whereas not fifty years ago under western law, they were asked to move to the back of a bus for a white man and a few decades earlier than that fighting for their rights to vote.. Question of civility and enlightenment is relative at best when it comes to the west!

Well, if I had to choose between Bush and Mohammad for President I would, without the slightest hesitation, pick Mohammad however you need to be specific which variant of Islamic law you feel worked so well. Islamic law certianly is interesting and very advanced for it's time however I am willing to be any school you pick would have certain components that modern secular people would not like.
What do you know of Islamic law? little snippets from the media or you have studied it? it takes a good 7-11 years to know Islamic jurisprudence. I am all for bringing the Muslim empire as it once was, whilst Europe in its Darkest ages, Islam the pinnacle of enlightenment!




Perhapse he feels uncomftorable with multiple court systems geared to specific religious groups that may further isolate and alienate the British Muslim population from the rest of the country (no idea if that;'s true, just a hunch)
Civil cases are alienating regardless of whether you are implementing 18th century french constitution or some 20th century amendment. I for instance find an American system of bucolic jurors from the streets hilarious, and wouldn't want to partake whether a defendant, plaintiff or plain spectator.. yet here it is the dumb law that governs the land, where an undereducated non-english speaking woman can sue the city for $75,000,000 of mine and other hard working people's tax money, because she fell on the street and needs someone accountable and paying for her free loading ways!


England has also exported quite a bit of brilliance over the past few centuries. You have them to thank for the computer you are typing on. Particularly an English gay man who ended up killing himself with a poison apple after being forced into hormone treatments via Englands religiously motivated anti-gay laws.
I didn't know the bible asked gay men to undergo hormone treatment.. but glad you acknowledge that up to the seventies the 'civilized' west still considered homosexuality an act of sexual deviation, although a digression from our thread. Most of the things I use are Japanese.. and if the world has seen the mountain it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants. I thank England for nothing!



They have every right to debate their country's court systems.
And I have every right to debate my opinion, considering those who want to live under sharia law are also Citizens of that 'democratic country' and democracy by definition entails that supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them, to govern by what desire to be governed with.. if this doesn't concern you, then I don't see why get so riled up about it!



How lovely.

indeed
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 04:27 AM
We have had this dual secular-sharia system in India for over 6 decades with absolutely no dispute whatsoever. All our sharia laws related to inheritance, divorce, marriage, etc, for Muslims only.

Muslims make up 15% of India's population.
Reply

Malaikah
10-13-2008, 05:05 AM
The guys argument that the community isn't ready for it, whether right or wrong, is not what I have an issue with.

My problem is that he thinks Islamic courts will discriminate against women. I really hope he doesn't mean what I think he means because that comes dangerously close to words of kufr!
Reply

Uthman
10-13-2008, 06:20 AM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
My problem is that he thinks Islamic courts will discriminate against women. I really hope he doesn't mean what I think he means because that comes dangerously close to words of kufr!
I thought that he was saying that at first, but on closer inspection, I think what he means is that people might force the women to 'agree' to using the Sharia courts, so it wouldn't really be her 'free choice'. Get me? I don't think he was saying that Sharia is discriminatory in and of itself.

:w:
Reply

Uthman
10-13-2008, 06:23 AM
Hi barney,

Thanks for the post.

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Then they should fill their boots, if you acknowlage the expression. But the decison should not be recognised in English Law. It should hold the same weight as two neighbours who have a chat over a cup of tea with a mutual freind and their freind decideds what they should do.

I dont want to start waxing large about womens rights and injustices because I'm certain I can use all that blather for another thread. Simply put, special interest groups should have no say in actual enforcable law. Otherwise My religion says I can rob banks with Impunity and i'm going to be tried by the high preist. The high preist is my Dad and the jury is my pet dog. Dont diss it. Its my religion.
As far as I'm aware, the decisions that are reached via the Sharia courts should in no way contradict or go against English law. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, are you aware of the advantages of having these types of things recognised by English law? Mainly, the civil courts not being as clogged up.

Regards
Reply

Uthman
10-13-2008, 06:24 AM
Hi wth1257,

format_quote Originally Posted by wth1257
I certianly understand why some Muslims may wish to do that and I think it's perfectly fair, but why not simply use abrogation?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Care to explain? :)

Thanks.
Reply

Malaikah
10-13-2008, 07:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
I thought that he was saying that at first, but on closer inspection, I think what he means is that people might force the women to 'agree' to using the Sharia courts, so it wouldn't really be her 'free choice'. Get me? I don't think he was saying that Sharia is discriminatory in and of itself
:sl:

No, that isn't the impression I got at all. Even if it is, why should he point out only Muslim women being forced? What about MEN? Women aren't the only ones who are forced to do things they don't want to do!

And as a Muslim his primary concern would be that people - men or women - would choose man made law over Islamic law- a serious sin!
Reply

doorster
10-13-2008, 08:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
:sl:

No, that isn't the impression I got at all. Even if it is, why should he point out only Muslim women being forced? What about MEN? Women aren't the only ones who are forced to do things they don't want to do!

And as a Muslim his primary concern would be that people - men or women - would choose man made law over Islamic law- a serious sin!
wa alaikum salam sister

I think he is right, we really are not advanced enough as a group, even those who claim to be educated, and (self-appointed) leaders of Muslims, have no clue, as a rule we are a collection of different ill-educated groups driven not by Islam but other things

just read posts on this forum (best of its type) or at yanabi or shiachat, by British Muslims to see their ideas of what Islam is (these are the people who can actually read and write) out there in real life Britain, they are even unable to manage their Mosques without weekly pitched battles (I've seen them doing that in 3 different English cities) God forbid someone made them in-charge of doling out justice (when a huge majority of them cant tell what the word daraba means).

one Birmingham Imam whose tapes, videos are every where on internet, married a second wife (in secret [secret marriages are NOT allowed in Islam]) the secret wife then embarked on an affair with another man, which in turn caused a battle between followers of Imam and followers of his secretary (the boyfriend of his wife) resulting in death of one man (followed later by one more) and arrest of many.

It will take at least another generation or 2 before we achieve the same level of sophistication as the Jewish people of UK.

:w:
Reply

barney
10-13-2008, 10:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
Hi barney,

Thanks for the post.



As far as I'm aware, the decisions that are reached via the Sharia courts should in no way contradict or go against English law. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, are you aware of the advantages of having these types of things recognised by English law? Mainly, the civil courts not being as clogged up.

Regards
I'd rather have the civil courts clog up than special interest groups be treated in any way shape or form different from any other citizen.
Especially a special interest group that was convinced that it had been told what to do by God.
I would be confident that current rulings do not contradict English law, that would mean hammering in the thick end of the wedge.

English law is designed so that every person coming under it can be treated equally regardless of sex, orientation, race, colour ,religion or age.
There are parts of Sharia that discriminate.

I would accept Sharia lawbeing implemented if it was voted in democratically.
Then I would leave the country.
Reply

Uthman
10-13-2008, 01:30 PM
Hi barney,

Let's say that Sharia is a discriminatory system (obviously I would disagree). If somebody chooses to use it, then they would clearly want to be discriminated against. Why should we stop them?

Also, why should it bother you so much when it doesn't really affect you. Or does it?

Regards
Reply

barney
10-13-2008, 04:36 PM
We might all want to be treated differently. I for one would like my next speeding offence to be punished with having to eat a fudge ice cream.

That dosnt make it right.
The other factor I allude to is this is the thin end of the wedge. If shaira law is implemented, then by its nature (its gods law and god> man) then it has to be above mans law (and im not suggessting SL is anything else...just a particularly old manmade law set)

We are a democracy and not a theocracy yet. Anything religiously based cannot be allowed to have legal weight.
I disagree with swearing on the bible, the blasphemy laws etc etc.
Reply

Uthman
10-13-2008, 05:47 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
We might all want to be treated differently. I for one would like my next speeding offence to be punished with having to eat a fudge ice cream.

That dosnt make it right.
That's why these courts are restricted to business/family matters only and NOT criminal law which was made clear from the outset. Or is that beside your point?

format_quote Originally Posted by barney
The other factor I allude to is this is the thin end of the wedge. If shaira law is implemented, then by its nature (its gods law and god> man) then it has to be above mans law (and im not suggessting SL is anything else...just a particularly old manmade law set)

We are a democracy and not a theocracy yet. Anything religiously based cannot be allowed to have legal weight.
I disagree with swearing on the bible, the blasphemy laws etc etc.
Fair enough. Your views are pretty clear on the issue. :)

Regards
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-03-2012, 05:43 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-31-2012, 05:50 PM
  3. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-03-2011, 07:23 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 03:22 AM
  5. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-20-2008, 11:31 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!