Islamic law adopted in Britain

[JimH52]

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Doesn't this say that BOTH parites have to agree to give it the power to rule? So the parties have a choice.

If one party does not agree, the case goes to the British court system.

 

[Bootneck]

If you want to take a pop at my country MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR FUCKING facts right!!!!!!!





Hee heee, kinda like you guys popping off about the USA.

Find ONE post of mine that has a go at the usa. I don't come her to do that!!!!

Furthermore, Collins isn't British!!!!

You really are proving to be rather more dense than I gave you credit for.

 

[JimH52]

Ummmmm... no moreso than when a Catholic goes to his/her church for a religious divorce or a Jew goes to a Beit Din...

I'm not quite sure why the hysteria over this. Religious people of many stripes go to the state for civil remedies but to their religious tribunals for relief that will be recognized by their religion. A case dealing with the issue of how far those religious tribunals can go was actually just decided by the NYS Court of Appeals.

This is a good point. I just don't see what the hysteria. No one HAS TO go to this religious tribunal. The British courts are always an option.

 

[Bootneck]

call me foolish, but why do you need a seperate arbitration for Muslims???? English law not fair and equitable??????

READ MY LIPS! it is not a law that provides seperate arbitration just for muslims. If you haven't got it yet, you never will.

 

[Bootneck]

Doesn't this say that BOTH parites have to agree to give it the power to rule? So the parties have a choice.

If one party does not agree, the case goes to the British court system.

Exactly! Both parties have to be in agreement to accept a ruling from the court of arbitration. Except that it doesn't necessarily have to go to the law courts, since the matters dealt with are not criminal cases. They may just agree to disagree, so to speak. But yes, one or the other of the parties in dispute could take it to a civil court. Then it could cost big money.

 

[AllieBaba]

Let me explain something to retarded jesus freak americans.

The UK...and every other European country...laugh at ALL religions.

Islam, christianity, Hinduism... they are all exactly the same.

If anyone in public office admits to being religious...they are laughed out of town.

It is alot more embarassing than admitting to being a transvestite.

So there is ZERO chance of islam or any other religion ever taking any power in the UK//

Do you understand that jesus freak americans?

And that proves how stupid the English are. Religion is nothing to laugh at. Your failure to take it seriously (and your failure in the past to take it seriously) will (and has) land you in some very, very deep water.

Unfortunately, you are no longer the power that you were when you were laughing at the Hindus, and the Muslims, and the Jews, in the past. Now when you laugh at a religion and it bites you in the ass, we'll have to bail you out, yet again.

 

[Navy1960]

READ MY LIPS! it is not a law that provides seperate arbitration just for muslims. If you haven't got it yet, you never will.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts - Times Online

Thought this might go to the heart of the matter Boot, love the quote btw.

 

[Anguille]

Yup, of course Jews have been demanding that according to their religion Government must be religious right? This is foolish in the extreme. it tells Muslims one thing, that the west is weak.

It encourages them to push for more and it tells them they will get what they want. But you spin it anyway you want. Remind us again how Christian religion is bad but Muslims should have their own laws.

How is this any different from when people agree not to pursue a lawsuit in the courts in exchange for appearing on Judge Judy and agreeing to abide by her judgement?

 

[dilloduck]

How is this any different from when people agree not to pursue a lawsuit in the courts in exchange for appearing on Judge Judy and agreeing to abide by her judgement?

Awesome idea----Muslims on Judge Judy !!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bootneck]

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Thought this might go to the heart of the matter Boot, love the quote btw.

Hi Navy! You got it in one pal!

As for the quote, can't claim that one. It's borrowed from one of your great countrymen, Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain.

 

[Shogun]

This is a good point. I just don't see what the hysteria. No one HAS TO go to this religious tribunal. The British courts are always an option.

yea.. but.. were this to happen in the US i'd say my rebuttal would be that there should BE NO religious option that is an alternate to state law reflecting the federal constitution.


Thank the flying spaghetti monster for the first amendment.


oh, and for the brits in this thread.. Was it not Brittain's saturation of dogma in public law that causes people to flee to THIS continent? just checking.

 

[WillowTree]

READ MY LIPS! it is not a law that provides seperate arbitration just for muslims. If you haven't got it yet, you never will.

oh well, pardon my ignorance. I didn't know anyone but Muslims followed Sharia law. Educate me.

 

[WillowTree]

How is this any different from when people agree not to pursue a lawsuit in the courts in exchange for appearing on Judge Judy and agreeing to abide by her judgement?

Oh well, of course, and any muslim lady who defies her husband and says she is not going to abide by Sharia ruling is well maybe in a little danger. We have had honor killings here in the United States. Any in UK???

 

[jillian]

This is a good point. I just don't see what the hysteria. No one HAS TO go to this religious tribunal. The British courts are always an option.

And it only applies to issues within the muslim community. It has NOTHING to do with our laws. It doesn't change them. It doesn't somehow diminish them.

When Catholics get an anulment from their Church, no one says word one.

So, I'm confused about the animosity here.

 

[jillian]

Oh well, of course, and any muslim lady who defies her husband and says she is not going to abide by Sharia ruling is well maybe in a little danger. We have had honor killings here in the United States. Any in UK???

We've had honor killings in the U.S.???

If anyone were to be killed, that would fall under the purview of the appropriate law enforcement agency.

 

[Bootneck]

oh well, pardon my ignorance. I didn't know anyone but Muslims followed Sharia law. Educate me.

Wow, now you're becoming boringly predictable. Never mind, you'll grow out of it.

Found any posts to support your accusation that I've been popping at the USA yet? Or does your silence on that denote that you were talking out of your arse.

 

[Bootneck]

We've had honor killings in the U.S.???

If anyone were to be killed, that would fall under the purview of the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Forget it Jillian. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between family dispute arbitration and criminal law.

 

[Anguille]

yea.. but.. were this to happen in the US i'd say my rebuttal would be that there should BE NO religious option that is an alternate to state law reflecting the federal constitution.


Thank the flying spaghetti monster for the first amendment.


oh, and for the brits in this thread.. Was it not Brittain's saturation of dogma in public law that causes people to flee to THIS continent? just checking.

Soggs, I'm just as rabidly anti clerical as you, but I can see no reason how allowing alternate arbitration interferes with seperation of church and state. No one is obliged to use the Jewish or Muslim arbitrators. The only thing that doesn't seem fair to me is that only Jews or Muslims can use them. I can't see why a non Jew or non Muslim would want to use them but everyone should be allowed the option.

 

[Anguille]

And it only applies to issues within the muslim community. It has NOTHING to do with our laws. It doesn't change them. It doesn't somehow diminish them.

When Catholics get an anulment from their Church, no one says word one.

So, I'm confused about the animosity here.

It's all about fear of Muslims, that's all.

 

[WillowTree]

Forget it Jillian. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between family dispute arbitration and criminal law.

first off I"m a she, not a he. Secondly, I have been known to talk out of my arse. And when I say you guys, I mean in general people from other countries popping off about the USA. Do you deny that? Yes, I imagine you do. and thirdly, i know the difference. My point is Muslim women are not afforded free will when it comes to settling disputes.