Non-Muslims turning to sharia 'courts' in Britain to resolve disputes

[Uthman]

Growing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia "courts" to resolve disputes in Britain, it has been claimed.

Up to five per cent of cases heard by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) involve people who do not follow the Islamic faith, it has been estimated.

The body operates court-like arbitration hearings in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, mainly dealing with disputes between business partners and mosques.

Those who use the service agree voluntarily to submit to its adjudication but its rulings are considered to be legally binding and can be enforced in county courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act.

A separate body, the Islamic Sharia Council, has been operating for several years, hearing divorce cases with a panel of seven "judges" based in London.

But a report by Civitas, the think tank, published last month estimated that there are at least 85 sharia "courts" operating in Britain when unofficial hearings held in mosques are taken into account.

It led to claims of a "creeping" acceptance of sharia principles in Britain and followed controversy over remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last year that the adoption of aspects of Muslim law seemed "inevitable".

The MAT said that the greater weight attached to oral agreements in its hearings than the courts was making its service attractive to non-Muslims in Britain, who it estimates are now involved in one in 20 of its cases.

“We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not,” Freed Chedie, a spokesman, told The Times.

He cited a recent case in which a non-Muslim man took his Muslim business partner to arbitrate in a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company.

“The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” he said.

“The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”

Source

[GuestFellow]

I'm not surprised many non-Muslims are turning to Arbitration governed by Sharia law, especially in this economy.

The civil courts in this country are in a dreadful state. The civil courts are very expensive, time consuming, stressful and financially can be a burden upon the family. Many court cases last for years and the outcome can at times be very unpredictable. The court fees, the cost of Solicitors/Barristers can really be problem for some families who do not earn a high income. Legal aid is useless since it only takes on cases where there is a high chance of winning.

I fully support Arbitration and any other Alternative Dispute Resolution, such as mediation, conciliation and finally negotiation. It opens are door way for families to resolve disputes legally and without high costs involved. Though they have their advantages and disadvantages, they are far more effective and maintains a healthy relationship between the two parties involved, unlike civil courts.

But a report by Civitas, the think tank, published last month estimated that there are at least 85 sharia "courts" operating in Britain when unofficial hearings held in mosques are taken into account.

Arbitration takes place anywhere. Does not have to be official, as long as they are in line with 1996 Arbitration Act. Much Arbitration takes place in offices, hospitals and of such. In this case, it would be obvious Arbitrations will have to be held in mosques because the third parties need an Imam or an Islamic scholar to reach a final decision to resolve the dispute. The term Sharia court itself is a vague term.

It led to claims of a "creeping" acceptance of sharia principles in Britain and followed controversy over remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last year that the adoption of aspects of Muslim law seemed "inevitable"

Many non-Muslims do not know anything about Sharia law to begin with. The only aspects of Sharia law they hear from is the television, which apparently is the source of education for many sad viewers out there. If they actually bothered studying Sharia law in-depth analysis, it makes far more sense than compared to the UK civil system where apparently is rigid, ineffective and time consuming is, and majority of the time, only suited to the rich people who want to make a claim.

Even the UK courts expect parties to take an alternative course of action, rather than settle in the courts.

[AntiKarateKid]

Man... why the hek can't the US have sharia courts? Or do they? :hmm:

[Pygoscelis]

Canada has them and the US people like to point to it and tremble. But in reality its no big deal here. Canadian law trumps anything the Sharia Courts have to say. So the Sharia Courts here are essentially nothing but arbitrators with a muslim flavour.

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

[Gator]

Man... why the hek can't the US have sharia courts? Or do they? :hmm:

Actually, yes there are arbitration "courts" based on shariah in the US.

Here'a link to an old post:

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...tml#post914040

thanks.