Will Sharia Law ever work in Britain?

There's a big difference between the stoning of adulterers and honor killing.
To see islam's perspective on honor killing, see here: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503543392

As for stoning adulterers, as aamirsaab stated, it is only done when 4 witnesses are provided (witnesses of the actual act), the matter goes through a proper court, they are found guilty, etc. It's not like: "oh hey, those 2 people are kissing, omg, let me go throw rocks at them!"

"How come all those religious lessons and teachings and lifestyle choices never have an uplifting effect on the cultural practices"

The answer to that is that people are simply not following their religion anymore. If people did actually act in the way Allah and the prophet commanded us to, we wouldn't have "honor killings". And anyway, the only people that do practice honor killings are uneducated nonreligious people who don't even stop for a moment to think it may be wrong to kill your own daughter. In other words, idiots.

edit- oh, and btw, if someone did commit an honor killing in a real islamic state with real shariah practiced, they would be charged with murder.

There was something on TV I saw a few weeks back.
It showed that the Shariah Law can implemented in Canada. I'm not sure but I think it was that you can use the Shariah Law (only Muslims) instead of the State Law.. Does anyone know something more about this?

^ Thank you! That was what I was looking for.

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

There is little difference in Stoning of Adulterers and honor killings , both are acts of barbarism carried out by a fanatical culture and could only be looked upon as abhorrent by any civilised court or society. Its hard to believe that religious scholars would not see it this way and condemn such acts and use their teaching forums to educate their communities away from these sorts of practices .

As far as I am aware the only country that has tried to prosecute perpetrators of honour killings as murderers through the civil courts is Great Britain.

Still waiting for my sharia text book to come in ze post. Hopefully it will clarify the adultery issues. At the very least, it will help me explain it to you.

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

There is little difference in Stoning of Adulterers and honor killings , both are acts of barbarism carried out by a fanatical culture and could only be looked upon as abhorrent by any civilised court or society.

I disagree, there's a huge difference between the law being carried out and taking that law into your own hands.


As far as I am aware the only country that has tried to prosecute perpetrators of honour killings as murderers through the civil courts is Great Britain.

That's because no true islamic state exists in the present day.

This debate could go back and forth for days, and we just wouldn't get anywhere new.... I'll leave it to aamirsaab from here..

salaam...

Will Sharia law work? well yes, sharia law does work.

Will it work in Britain? ummm... why would you want to implement Sharia law in Britain?

Britain is a non-muslim country which isn't here to accomodate the whims and desires of Muslims. Muslim countries however, are a different concern. Sharia law works (why/how it works is a different topic) and the place to implement Sharia law is a country and a climate where the feeling amongst Muslims is just right, i.e a Muslim country. We don't need to be looking to create a Sharia state in Britain, but rather in the Muslim world.

So your question/hypothesis is really irrelevant (all you non-Muslim brits can breathe a sigh of relief, we wont be chopping your hands any time soon)

and Greetings,

This is a good article on this issue:

http://www.islam21c.com/british-affa...al-system.html

Haitham Al-Haddad

...the act of opting for the Shari’ah is so ingrained in Muslim culture that it is clearly manifested even in Muslims who observe only the mildest of Islamic practices...

The incredulous debate about Shari’ah and its implementation in Britain followed the release of a number of reports that have concluded that many Muslims would like to see Shari’ah implemented in the UK. I would like to draw the attention of all Muslims and non-Muslims to a few issues concerning this topic.

From the onset it should be understood that Shari’ah in its general form is synonymous to Islam. Once this is understood, we can realise that there are many parts of Shari’ah i.e., Islam, that have already been implemented in the UK. Furthermore, in terms of recognition, it is also common knowledge that Sharia compliant financial institutions have been recognised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA).


Moreover, it should be made clear that Muslims are not asking for all of the aspects of Shari’ah to be implemented in the UK, as we do not believe this is an Islamic state, and thus, all that we request of the government is that Muslim personal law be embedded or integrated within the national legal framework. In addition to this, we only expect shari’ah to be applied to proceedings in which Muslims opt for an Islamic solution to their disputes. In other words this is no more than a system of arbitration which is an extremely beneficial method of dissolving disputes among Muslims, while at the same time alleviating the burden that these respective disputes have on judicial institutions such as public courts.

It should be emphasised that it is an essential part of a Muslim’s code of conduct to refer all disputes to the Qur’an, the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the legacy of Muslim scholars. It is not accepted of any Muslim, who, having the capability to do so then chooses not to. Allah The Most High states in the Quran, ‘It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.’ [33:36] To that extent, we find that Allah states, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the disbelievers (i.e., disbelievers of a lesser degree as they do not act upon Allah’s laws).’ [5:44] And ‘Have you not seen those (Hypocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the taghut (false judges) while they have been ordered to reject them. But the devil wishes to lead them far astray. And when it is said to the “come to what Allah has sent down and the Messenger”, you see the Hypocrites turn away from you with aversion.’ [4:60-61]. Accordingly, scholars have agreed that it is an act of disbelief to refuse to refer to Shari’ah (Islam) while being able to do so. Therefore, supporting the call to have Muslim personal law recognized by the British judicial system is in itself an Islamic obligation and a basis of faith.


The act of opting for the Shari’ah is so ingrained in Muslim culture that it is clearly manifested even in Muslims who observe only the mildest of Islamic practices, yet turn to the Shari’ah in matters of divorce, khula’ (divorce by abdication), and inheritance. For example, a woman who has received an uncertain irrevocable divorce from her husband does not accept her return unless the permission of a reputable Imam is granted, thus, we would like to emphasise that the recognition of Islamic personal law by the British Judicial system is mainly going to improve the welfare of Muslim women in the UK. At the Islamic Shari’ah Council, we have encountered many women who are left in a state of limbo for years without being able to remarry as they could not obtain a divorce. It is a simple fact that Muslims do not and will not practically accept marriage dissolution by any non-Islamic judicial body, thus, the presence of Islamic bodies that judge in such matters and end the suffering of these women is an integral part of the welfare of any society. Social cohesion can only be achieved when the essential social needs of all aspects of society are fulfilled in a way in which no harm is caused to others. Therefore it is reasonable to see that many non-Muslim intellectuals such as Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have recognised this need, whereas some Muslims have aligned with many other non-Muslims in the prejudice and extremism currently displayed, exaggerating claims without fully comprehending the issue at hand.


The criticism that the implementation of shari’ah in the UK fuels the notion of separatism is extremely contradictory. Muslims are not asking for a complete Islamic system to run alongside British law, but rather that the British judicial system accommodate minor changes in specific Acts. There have already been a number of changes in some of these Acts to accommodate Jewish, Hindu and Sikh personal law. Additionally, we must accept that there are already a number of laws incorporated into British law which have already effectively been drawn for shari’ah. Examples include Halal meat and food which requires alternative regulations (to that of British law) for slaughtering and processing afterwards. It also requires specific arrangements in regards to catering for Muslims in schools and universities. There were some difficulties encountered to accommodate this essential need for Muslims, yet once overcome the result was an effective system which facilitated the integration of Muslims and overall wellbeing and satisfaction. We should remember that Jews also have their own system of producing kosher meat, and thus the facilitation of ease for religious minorities makes the British legal system superior to many other non-Islamic legal systems.


The row that took place in reaction to comments made by Dr Rowan Williams uncovered the stark reality of many western values. It was shocking to see the amount of criticism made against the Archbishop, where ironically Muslims are usually accused of intolerance when criticising the defamation of their prophet and religion. Another fallacy which has been revealed is that many members of Britain’s ‘liberal’ society are at heart right-wing radicals who hold in contempt any peaceful and civilised call for acceptance, although it is usually claimed that Muslims attempt to impose their views on others. Yet contradictorily, we notice that many of these same individuals pay no mind to the illegal British and American invasion and occupation of foreign countries while shedding the innocent blood of its population and destroying its infrastructure in order to enforce their "shari’ah".


In the spirit of cooperation we ask all individuals and organisations who are in favour of retaining family values, facilitating minority rights and wellbeing to support our call.

I could only think the way to incorporate Shariah laws into British Common Law is to have more Muslim legislators inside British Parliament. Which means more political participation by Muslims. Is there any other way? Can we bring more Muslims into political fray by ballot box? With rising Islamophobia can these Muslims gain the support needed?

according to this article, shariah already exists in uk for certain civil cases.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,542811.story

Hello Snakelegs,

According to the article that you posted, divorces obtained through the Shar'iah courts are still not recognised by British law and so divorcees are still required to go through the civil courts as well. Am I right?

format_quote Originally Posted by barrio79

...Its hard to believe that religious scholars would not see it this way and condemn such acts and use their teaching forums to educate their communities away from these sorts of practices .

The stoning punishment for adultery only applies to muslims. The judge in an adultery trial has to be convinced that the accused has committed the crime. If there is a single shred of doubt in the judge's mind that the accused is innocent, then the stoning punishment isn't applied. It is therefore entirely upto the Judge - he/she has ultimate power in this case and should technically speaking be on the perpetrator's side.

The reason for such a harsh punishment is that adultery it creates breakdowns in society and lack of marriage often leads to seperation. If there is a child involved then obviously this can be detrimental. I should note that divorce rates are much higher in the western world too (which correlates with the lack of marriages....clearly there is a link between the two!).

The possibility of abortion [which is also haram/unlwaful] is therefore more likely. This can be seen especially in UK's recent history of teenage pregnancies and abortions - just 3 days ago reports of teenage abortions (younger than 14!) was at an all time high. Clearly, the need for a punishment for adulterey IS required.

If you have any more questions regarding sharia law, please ask them on this thread and I shall do my best to answer them. Thanks.

Edit: with regards to witnesses - though they do play a vitally important role in the court, they are not as I previously stated a pre-requisite for a trial. If there is sufficient evidence (such as dna, cctv etc etc) to prove the accused is guilty (beyond ANY doubt as opposed to reasonable doubt) then, and only then is the hadd punishment (aka stoning, cutting of limbs etc) allowed.

format_quote Originally Posted by Osman

Hello Snakelegs,

According to the article that you posted, divorces obtained through the Shar'iah courts are still not recognised by British law and so divorcees are still required to go through the civil courts as well. Am I right?

yes, you're right. a civil decree is still required. so it is limited.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs

yes, you're right. a civil decree is still required. so it is limited.

Unlike the Beth Din courts operating for the Jews in Britain!

format_quote Originally Posted by Osman

Unlike the Beth Din courts operating for the Jews in Britain!

There are much less jews than muslims.

The view from inside a Sharia court

Religious courts already in use

Incorporating Sharia into legal systems