Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Muslim family in Canada k...
Today at 10:45 AM

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 06:31 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:55 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 04:35 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 11:18 AM

dissertation research pro...
June 11, 2021, 10:29 PM

Gaza assault
June 10, 2021, 10:44 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 10, 2021, 10:31 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
June 09, 2021, 02:43 AM

The essence of the facts
by akay
June 08, 2021, 06:43 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
June 06, 2021, 01:06 PM

Pi a new digital crypto c...
by asif
June 04, 2021, 09:27 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Sharia get's English court approval

 (Read 4158 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Sharia get's English court approval
     OP - October 26, 2008, 12:13 PM

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3258965/Sharia-rulings-on-divorces-and-disputes-to-be-rubber-stamped-by-English-courts.html

    Quote
    Sharia rulings on divorces and disputes to be rubber-stamped by English courts
    A Government decision to allow Islamic courts in Britain the right to rule on family disputes and divorces has been condemned as discriminatory to women.


    By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
    Last Updated: 9:03AM GMT 26 Oct 2008

    Civil rights campaigners are angry that ministers have approved plans to allow Sharia councils in Britain the right to settle disputes regarding money, property and access to children.

    They say such tribunals are institutions for male domination which treat women like second-class citizens.

    Couples who choose to use the Sharia system must get the ruling rubber-stamped by a judge sitting in an ordinary family court.

    But neither party has to attend this hearing and approval can be obtained by filling in a two-page application.

    The endorsement of Sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior minister, in answer to a parliamentary question.

    She said Sharia councils would still have no jurisdiction in England, and rulings by religious authorities would have no legal force.

    But she added: "If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgement in Sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court. This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets."

    Campaigners condemned the plans as unacceptable and said that the rulings were not compatible with English law, while the Conservatives insisted that should be safeguards for women.

    Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: "There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country.

    "It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a Sharia council is involved, women's rights are protected and judgments are non-binding."

    Another Conservative spokesman, Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for communities and local government, accused the Government of keeping the public in the dark and warned: "There must be one British law for everyone."

    Dr David Green, the Director of the Civitas think tank, said: "I think there are a number of problems with regards to Sharia law. These Sharia councils are supposed to operate under the Arbitration Act which allows citizens in a free society to settle their disputes on a voluntary basis if they so wish.

    "But that legislation assumes that both parts are regarded as being equal. I think the problem is with tribunals like these you can't always be sure that women would be treated equally.

    "Under Islam a man can divorce a woman just by saying I divorce you three times. But a woman must go to a Sharia court to seek a divorce. Often the ruling goes in favour of the woman, but I think on the whole these councils are institutions for male domination. As a result I do not believe these rulings and proceedings should be recognised under British law.

    "Under the traditions of Sharia law the voice of a women is not equal to that of a man."

    Mr Goodman said he did not object to the new rules in principle, on condition that all women were in receipt of proper safeguards. But he criticised the manner in which the Government had quietly introduced the new rules.

    "The manner in which the Government has introduced these rules has been completely unsatisfactory," he said. "There was no major announcement about this when it was quietly introduced in 2007. The public have been kept in the dark about what is going on."

    "Our understanding is that certain Muslim arbitration tribunals have been licensed to operate in the confines of the Arbitration Act just like the Jewish beth din courts. We have no objection in principle to these organisations operating within the confinements of the Arbitration Act.

    "But we would be concerned about Sharia councils operating outside the confines of the Arbitration Act. We have raised concerns that in all circumstances women who attend these proceedings should and must attend on a voluntary basis."

    A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice defended the changes. She said: "These procedures would not allow anything that would not be permissible under UK law.

    "The Sharia Council can sit both parties down if both sides agree and produce a consent order. This then has to be approved by a judge sitting in a family court."

    Islamic tribunals have authority to make decisions in business and financial disputes where both parties are free to accept arbitration. Five Sharia courts operate mediation systems under the Arbitration Act of 1996.

    But campaigners say financial disputes are less controversial because they are much less likely to raise problems over the status of women.

    A spokesman for the Bar Council also defended the new changes, saying: "Anything that is decided under the Arbitration Act cannot run counter to the fundamental principles of English law."


    I chose to get circumcised at 17, don't tell me I never believed.
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #1 - October 26, 2008, 12:27 PM

    I know a couple of muslim women who told me flat out they would never turn to a sharia court if there was a dispute over inheritance or marriage and the like.  Of course I can't see the point in calling yourself a muslim and yet loving the western secular rule of law and said so but the silly bints can't see that yet.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #2 - October 26, 2008, 12:29 PM

    the only thing sharia covers in financial disputes is the following: Women get a lot less during an inheritance. You can not invest your money, you can only constatly gamble it away regardless of your age or existing wealth. If you rob some money, 20% has to go to Rasool allah (and now his khalifa), and the khalifa has to spend 20% on charity, 20% of his family (only 20%?) and he gets to keep 60% to himself.

    Can someone plz point to me what else i missed as far as sharia and money?

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #3 - October 26, 2008, 12:30 PM

    the only thing sharia covers in financial disputes is the following: Women get a lot less during an inheritance. You can not invest your money, you can only constatly gamble it away regardless of your age or existing wealth. If you rob some money, 20% has to go to Rasool allah (and now his khalifa), and the khalifa has to spend 20% on charity, 20% of his family (only 20%?) and he gets to keep 60% to himself.

    Can someone plz point to me what else i missed as far as sharia and money?



    What do you mean "gamble it away"?

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #4 - October 26, 2008, 04:40 PM

    the only thing sharia covers in financial disputes is the following: Women get a lot less during an inheritance. You can not invest your money, you can only constatly gamble it away regardless of your age or existing wealth. If you rob some money, 20% has to go to Rasool allah (and now his khalifa), and the khalifa has to spend 20% on charity, 20% of his family (only 20%?) and he gets to keep 60% to himself.

    Can someone plz point to me what else i missed as far as sharia and money?



    What do you mean "gamble it away"?

    You can not store your money in a fund where the interest is pre-agreed upon. The only type of funds where the interest is not pre-determined is stocks or playing a casino in Las Vegas. Young people are advised to have 30% of their money locked in 'safe investments', as you get older, your potential to recover from bad financial adventures become smaller, so you are advised to have more and more of your money into safe funds, eventually only 10% could be gambled away. If you even want to gamble that is.

    Under Sharia, all your money, is put at risk, all the time. What muslim banks do is offer the nudge nudge wink wink fund where they do not promise you a return on investment but 'almost' guarantee you a similar result as the previous year.

    Such a system will work great for short-term 'take away the money and run banks' as the bank does not need to offer any types of guarantees. Think the disaster that happened in the US house banking this year, and apply it to islamic paradises' banks every 5-7 years.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #5 - October 26, 2008, 04:45 PM

    But there are sharia bank accounts that pay no interest, wouldn't that be storing it and saving it without gambling it away? (if that sounds uneducated that's because this is money/numbers and figures lol not my strongest point)

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #6 - October 26, 2008, 04:57 PM

    But there are sharia bank accounts that pay no interest, wouldn't that be storing it and saving it without gambling it away? (if that sounds uneducated that's because this is money/numbers and figures lol not my strongest point)


    the global credit crunch and economic slowdown has become a boon for sharia banks.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1070430/Non-Muslims-flock-safe-haven-Sharia-bank-protected-crunch-non-gambling-rule.html

    "When one bright intellect meets another bright intellect, the light increases and the Way becomes clear -- Rumi
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #7 - October 26, 2008, 05:43 PM

    But there are sharia bank accounts that pay no interest, wouldn't that be storing it and saving it without gambling it away? (if that sounds uneducated that's because this is money/numbers and figures lol not my strongest point)

    Oh crap, I never even heard of this sh1t, this is absolutely worse. In the gambling scenario, you can still be guaranteed your initial capital in certain funds, just the interest is not guaranteed. In this case you mention berbs, you are guaranteed no interest, you just lose due to inflation.

    The bank of course keeps the interest to themselves.

    Allahu Akbar?

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #8 - October 28, 2008, 01:16 PM

    Woo-fucking-hoo.

    Maybe I haven't read enough about this, but I'm pretty pissed off about what I have read.
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #9 - October 28, 2008, 01:25 PM

    But there are sharia bank accounts that pay no interest, wouldn't that be storing it and saving it without gambling it away? (if that sounds uneducated that's because this is money/numbers and figures lol not my strongest point)


    the global credit crunch and economic slowdown has become a boon for sharia banks.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1070430/Non-Muslims-flock-safe-haven-Sharia-bank-protected-crunch-non-gambling-rule.html

    Just because the owner of the account is not investing his money, it does not mean the bank storing his money is not investing the money. This just the bank trying to scam more people into storing their money with him.


    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #10 - October 28, 2008, 06:26 PM

    ***I know a couple of muslim women who told me flat out they would never turn to a sharia court if there was a dispute over inheritance or marriage and the like***

    I guess you're not suggesting that your two friends are typical, BerberElla, and that all Muslim women would have a choice. My reservation is that community and family pressure would not allow such fredom to choose a 'fait' court of arbitration.

    My own feeling is that no religious court should be allowed to influence secular justice in the slightest way, but I'm particularly worried about a system -- based on ancient scripture -- that is pre-disposed to one section of humanity.

    The Act of Parliament that allows sharia justice to play a part in the UK system clearly states that arbitration panels should be 'impartial'. How can a bench of justices be 'impartial' when its decisions are determined according to strict 1,300-year-old scriptural laws clearly biased against women?

    Neil

    We are not here to fight religion. We are here to make religion irrelevant. NM
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #11 - October 28, 2008, 09:48 PM

    This is the main point, of course. Any panel that starts from the assumption that a woman's evidence is worth half a man's evidence cannot possibly be considered "impartial", or at least not in any sane sense of the word. The whole notion is completely absurd.

    On that basis alone sharia "courts" should have no backing whatsoever from the UK legal system.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #12 - October 30, 2008, 11:26 AM

    This is the main point, of course. Any panel that starts from the assumption that a woman's evidence is worth half a man's evidence cannot possibly be considered "impartial", or at least not in any sane sense of the word. The whole notion is completely absurd.

    On that basis alone sharia "courts" should have no backing whatsoever from the UK legal system.


    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    It's really sad to see Britain taking a step forward and 4 steps back.

    Why is it that as humans we can't be moderate? We have to stick to one form of an extreme? (e.g the BNP and their intolerance or religious fantacism as the opposite extreme).
  • Re: Sharia get's English court approval
     Reply #13 - October 31, 2008, 04:03 PM

    This is the main point, of course. Any panel that starts from the assumption that a woman's evidence is worth half a man's evidence cannot possibly be considered "impartial", or at least not in any sane sense of the word. The whole notion is completely absurd.

    On that basis alone sharia "courts" should have no backing whatsoever from the UK legal system.


    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    It's really sad to see Britain taking a step forward and 4 steps back.

    Why is it that as humans we can't be moderate? We have to stick to one form of an extreme? (e.g the BNP and their intolerance or religious fantacism as the opposite extreme).


    Actually it is because we, as a society, are moderate that such things happen in the first place; by condemning all extremes as inherently bad you are condemning the extremely good along with the extremely evil, whilst at the same time accepting evil in moderation (such as Britain approving of the practice of shariah law within it's own legal system.)  Ideologically there is little difference between the likes of the BNP and the Islamists/Islamo-fascists - they both prefer seek to implement totalitarian societies at the cost of individual freedom.

    Regards,
    Gonzo

    "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles" - Ayn Rand
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »