http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html (Article from 2009) Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts. However, they operate behind doors that are closed to independent observers and their decisions are likely to be unfair to women and backed by intimidation, a report by independent think-tank Civitas said. Commentators on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford, Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act. But the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals. The spread of sharia law has become increasingly controversial since its role was backed last year by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice who stepped down last October. Dr Williams said a recognised role for sharia law seemed 'unavoidable' and Lord Phillips said there was no reason why decisions made on sharia principles should not be recognised by the national courts. But the Civitas report said the principles on which sharia courts work are indicated by the fatwas - religious decrees - set out on websites run by British mosques.  Mr MacEoin said: 'Among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.' Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim. Further rulings, according to the report, approve polygamous marriage and enforce a woman's duty to have sex with her husband on his demand. The report added: 'The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. 'Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.' It said: 'Sharia courts operating in Britain may be handing down rulings that are inappropriate to this country because they are linked to elements in Islamic law that are seriously out of step with trends in Western legislation.' The study pointed out that the House of Lords ruled in a child custody case last year that the sharia rules on the matter were 'arbitrary and discriminatory'. And a 2003 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said it was 'difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values.' However last year Justice Minister Bridget Prentice told MPs that 'if, in a family dispute ...the parties to a judgment in a 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 judges to scrutinise it to ensure it complies with English legal tenets.' Decisions from sharia tribunals can be presented to a family court judge for approval with no more detail than is necessary to complete a two page form. The sharia courts in the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal are recognised as courts under the Arbitration Act. This law, which covers Jewish Beth Din courts, gives legal powers to a tribunal if all parties involved accept its authority. The Civitas study said the Islamic courts should no longer be recognised under British law. Its director Dr David Green said: 'The reality is that for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.' The Muslim Council in Britain condemned the study for ' stirring up hatred'. A spokesman said: 'Sharia councils are perfectly legitimate. There is no evidence they are intimidating or discriminatory against women. The system is purely voluntary so if people don't like it they can go elsewhere.' Patrick Mercer, Tory MP for Newark and chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism sub committee, said: 'We have an established law of the land and a judiciary. Anything that operates otside that system must be viewed with great caution. 'If crimes are going unreported to police, this will erode the authority of those who have to enforce our law. In a sovereign state there must be one law, and one law only.' Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, said: 'Everyone should be deeply concerned about the extent of these courts. 'They do entrench division in society, and do nothing to entrench integration or community cohesion. It leads to a segregated society. 'There should be one law, and that should be British law. We can't have a situation where people can choose which system of law they follow and which they do not. 'We can't have a situation where people choose the system of law which they feel gives them the best outcome. Everyone should equal under one law.' Veteran Tory Lord Tebbit provoked anger among Muslims earlier this month by comparing Islamic sharia courts to gangsters. He likened the tribunals to the 'system of arbitration of disputes that was run by the Kray brothers'. Lord Tebbit told the Lords: 'Are you not aware that there is extreme pressure put upon vulnerable women to go through a form of arbitration that results in them being virtually precluded from access to British law?' Warning that women could be shut out from the protection of the law, he asked Justice Minister Lord Bach: 'That is a difficult matter, I know, but how do you think we can help those who are put in that position?'
These should be shut down by any civilized world, they should legislate them out - and charge those that try to institute them. In other words entirely illegal. DD
Yes, you should worry about those. They lack legitimacy, in my opinion. But at least, Christian courts mostly do not treat women worse than men, very much contrary to what Sharia courts do. And your defensiveness about a Sharia court by pointing at other religions also having their own courts is interesting - you still haven't freed yourself fully from the shackles of having been brought up in a religious ideology. Just goes to show how difficult it is to break free from having been brainwashed, even if one is very intelligent.
Boris Johnson: 'Sharia law in the UK is absolutely unacceptable' BORIS Johnson has branded Sharia Law in the UK as "absolutely unacceptable", as he slammed Church of England clerics who say the Islamic legal code should be incorporated into British law. Speaking on LBC radio this morning, the London Mayor said he was opposed to "a Sharia system running in parallel with UK justice." His remarks come a day after Home Secretary Theresa May called for an investigation into the application of Sharia law in England and Wales if Conservatives win the General Election. But the mayor said he took "grave exception" to Church of England clerics who suggest the principles of Sharia could be introduced into the legal system. Former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams sparked controversy in 2008 when he suggested it was "inevitable" that elements of Sharia would be incorporated in British law. Mr Johnson also called for a great separation between the Government and the Church of England, declaring the presence of 26 Bishops in the House of Lords as "clerical fossils." He said: "That is unacceptable to me. Everybody must be equal under the law, and everybody must obey the same law. That is absolutely cast-iron. "I take grave exception to some of the support I see sometimes - and from clerics in the Church of England who've come out in favour of this, I've noticed, and said we should be a little bit indulgent of this. "It's an interesting fact that we have some clerical fossils still in our legislature. Don't forget we have bishops sitting by right in our upper house. "The separation of church and state is not perhaps as thorough-going in this country as you might like to think. "The point is that the idea of a parallel system of law, a parallel judicature, people making the laws holding to a different system, is absolutely unacceptable, it's alien to our traditions. "I won't have it in London and I'm worried sometimes by the faint bat-squeaks of support that I hear for that idea even from clerics in the Church of England." Asked if the Beth Din would "have to go", Mr Johnson replied: "Yes, absolutely. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." He said he accepted that Jewish couples could go to a Beth Din to seek sanction for their divorce, but added: "It cannot substitute for UK civil proceedings. "They cannot replace the civil proceedings. If they want to have some ceremonial proceeding according to religious ritual or whatever, that is fine. But the actual implementation of the law has got to be done in British courts according to British law, agreed by Parliament. "That is where the law emanates from. The law emanates in the end from people voting for MPs who enact the statutes which we all obey. "That gives this country a vital equality." http://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...UK-absolutely-unacceptable-Islamic-legal-code Boris Johnson is right, as usual. And the Church of England is totally wrong - they are just fearing for some of their own privileges.
I started a new thread for the Sharia court discussion. My opinion is that of Boris Johnson: Everyone must be equal under the law. That means that religious courts, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim, must under no circumstances undermine that principle. At least Christian courts mostly do not treat women and men differently, as Sharia courts do.
Who has more experience with Muslim Americans. You or me? Why is me being defensive of Muslim Americans a product of my 'brainwashing' instead of having legitimate merit? This initial conversation came from you accusing another poster of being tolerant of sharia law when that poster was against state and local legislators wasting time to rile up their insular base by attempting to pass 'anti sharia law' bills when Sharia Lw is banned pretty clearly with the first amendment of the constitution. That is where the conversation is derived from. It's obvious you are being disingenuous. Muslim Americans wanting to create their own entities to deal with religious civil matter such as banking and marriage is the same as Catholics or Jews doing the same thing within the U.S. and no one is legally bound by them.
You are absolutely wrong. Sharia courts are widely regarded as a big problem in the UK, where this phenomenon has been recognized as having led to an erosion of the rights of women. I have given examples where "religious civil matter" being handled in a Sharia court leads to women's rights being taken away. You have ignored those examples. You are still defensive of some aspects of the ideology you have been brought up with, even though you have intellectually overcome other aspects of it. Again, it is psychologically understandable as to you some of these aspects are tied to your family and its beliefs. But you are wrong.
I don't care about the U.K. I'm referring to my country. Other religious entities have similar courts that are NON BINDING! Non-binding is a pretty ****ing important distinction. Joe the plumper would never know these courts exist because they are non binding, voluntary and must abide by federal, state and local statutes that are binding and are not voluntary.
fchowd0311, I recommend that you read this report: http://www.bowgroup.org/policy/bow-...-world-confronting-abuse-muslim-women-britain
fchowd0311, it's systematic - starts with one in Texas and they have already stated that they want it to be duplicated. It went down the same path in the UK. There is just a much higher percentage of Muslims in the population in the UK. Creeping Sharia. And you defend it.
Nope. Then we have creeping Catholic law, Jewish Law etc. Again, other religious entities have similar civil courts that mingle with civil matters such as banking and marriage. Again ALL of them are NON-BINDING and VOLUNTARY.
I wonder what Jewish court would look like...at least under Sharia, non believers treated equally like humans with all rights etc, Under judisim , non Jews considered sub-human Gentiles which automatically stipped others from their rights. Or what about the banking industry , Jews should not being charged interest by other Jews, can someone get away from his/ her personal loan in this case!
Nope, you are wrong. I recommend that you at least skim that report. These courts are not similar. They are different. Women's rights are taken away in these Sharia courts. That does not happen in Catholic courts, which, by the way, do not deal with banking. They deal with intra-Catholic church matters. When Catholic people have a legal issue with regard to banking, they go to regular courts.
Again, I don't care about the U.K. Show me these binding and non-voluntary Sharia courts in the U.S. It's odd. I lived my entire life in U.S. and was raised in two of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and not once have these courts ever interfered with my life or the lives of any other Muslim I know.
As they are formally recognized however they sometimes create a barrier to access to justice, though. I'm thinking of some Mormon and first nations tribunals which created the illusion of justice, but really made it even more difficult to oppressed members of those communities to seek redress. Sharia Courts do the same. So I'm with DD and ATW on this. Sharia/religious Courts should not be given any official recognition or legitimacy.
The context of the conversation was in regards to the United States, not Great Britain or any other place in Europe. Why is this thread entirely about Europe? No one was defending Sharia law. Wtf.
Muslim women having to go to one of these "Sharia courts" is about as non-binding as it is "non-binding" and "voluntary" for them to wear headscarves. These "courts" are a tool to oppress women. This tribunal has not interfered with your life because it is a new thing that is just being established in US Muslim communities. They follow a certain blueprint.
The only difference being that the percentage of the Muslim population in the United States is much smaller than in the UK or other places in Europe. The "Islamic Tribunal" in Texas already states on its website that it wants to see its model duplicated in the USA.
And let me refer to the initial point of contention that came from another thread. When a local state legislator is attempting to pass a bill 'banning Sharia Law' are they doing it out of a legitimate fear that Sharia Law has a legitimate chance of supplanting American sovereignty or are they doing it because many of their constituents are insular and xenophobic and these state legislator love racking up votes by pandering to fear?
I guarantee you no one on this forum and an overwhelming percentage of Texans have never even heard of the "Islamic Tribunal" These things have no legitimacy in the United States and never will.
