Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Underground.
49 Answers
After the latest terror attack in London, is it now time to open up a dialogue with the Muslim community?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Stan-Marsh. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I see Sharia "courts" has been mentioned.
A major criticism of the Sharia arbitration councils is the inferior status which Islam prescribes for women. The male judges will all be religious "experts" as well as legal ones (there being being no difference between the two domains in Islam). They will be arbitrating issues such as divorce, separation, child custody and so on.
Given the religious prejudices of their arbitrators women are very unlikely to be treated as fairly as they would be in a civil court.
Here is on report by Baroness Cox on the issue of Muslim women in Britain which refers to the so-called courts:
http://
A major criticism of the Sharia arbitration councils is the inferior status which Islam prescribes for women. The male judges will all be religious "experts" as well as legal ones (there being being no difference between the two domains in Islam). They will be arbitrating issues such as divorce, separation, child custody and so on.
Given the religious prejudices of their arbitrators women are very unlikely to be treated as fairly as they would be in a civil court.
Here is on report by Baroness Cox on the issue of Muslim women in Britain which refers to the so-called courts:
http://
“There are Sharia Councils but they are not courts of law.”
Indeed they are not. But as I have explained many times on here before, they might as well be. Sharia Councils are sanctioned as arbiters under the 2010 Arbitration Act. A telling passage (which really needs expansion) from your link says this:
“It's up to the people having the dispute who they agree to be the arbiter, and they can even choose to apply rules other than English law to the affair—so long as there is no conflict between the two.”
It is emphasised that the Sharia Councils cannot arbitrate in a way that conflicts with UK law. Anecdotal evidence (and that's all there will ever be), however, suggests this is not the case. There are reports that Sharia Councils grant “divorces” (which they are not empowered to do) and that they settle matters of child custody in a matter totally at odds with UK law (where the needs of the child are paramount) and that they bestow financial settlements in marriage break-ups totally at odds with UK law. (Readers may recall the guidance on Sharia Settlements which the Law Society issued to solicitors and which had to be hastily withdrawn).
Those who are the victims of such abuse by Sharia Councils are principally women. These women have effectively no such choice under the paragraph shown above. They are told that such matters are only dealt with by the Sharia Council. Because of their dominance over their women, male Muslims make no provision for them to have access to “proper” courts (and so make the “choice” mentioned above impossible).
Muslim women are thus victims of an alternative judiciary. Sharia courts are devised by men, run by men and their decisions are weighted heavily in men’s favour. There is no place for such forms of arbitration in the UK (and I also include in that, Jewish Beth Din courts).
“Quite...anyone using Sharia courts in this country has access to our real law...if they want or need it.”
Try suggesting that to a Muslim woman who has no access to money of her own, possibly speaks little English and who is dominated by the men in her life to believe that Sharia Law is the only way. To suggest that Muslim women have a choice in how they have these family matters settled is simply laughable.
Indeed they are not. But as I have explained many times on here before, they might as well be. Sharia Councils are sanctioned as arbiters under the 2010 Arbitration Act. A telling passage (which really needs expansion) from your link says this:
“It's up to the people having the dispute who they agree to be the arbiter, and they can even choose to apply rules other than English law to the affair—so long as there is no conflict between the two.”
It is emphasised that the Sharia Councils cannot arbitrate in a way that conflicts with UK law. Anecdotal evidence (and that's all there will ever be), however, suggests this is not the case. There are reports that Sharia Councils grant “divorces” (which they are not empowered to do) and that they settle matters of child custody in a matter totally at odds with UK law (where the needs of the child are paramount) and that they bestow financial settlements in marriage break-ups totally at odds with UK law. (Readers may recall the guidance on Sharia Settlements which the Law Society issued to solicitors and which had to be hastily withdrawn).
Those who are the victims of such abuse by Sharia Councils are principally women. These women have effectively no such choice under the paragraph shown above. They are told that such matters are only dealt with by the Sharia Council. Because of their dominance over their women, male Muslims make no provision for them to have access to “proper” courts (and so make the “choice” mentioned above impossible).
Muslim women are thus victims of an alternative judiciary. Sharia courts are devised by men, run by men and their decisions are weighted heavily in men’s favour. There is no place for such forms of arbitration in the UK (and I also include in that, Jewish Beth Din courts).
“Quite...anyone using Sharia courts in this country has access to our real law...if they want or need it.”
Try suggesting that to a Muslim woman who has no access to money of her own, possibly speaks little English and who is dominated by the men in her life to believe that Sharia Law is the only way. To suggest that Muslim women have a choice in how they have these family matters settled is simply laughable.
Probably simplistic of me - and bound to bring chaos on my head - but, this is Britain. Over hundreds of years our culture has been forged. It is our country, our culture. It seems to me to be reasonable that recent immigrants either adapt to our culture and respect it - or, if they can't, leave and find somewhere else to live. Why should we accept other systems and laws?
^^ I'll cite the 'Mela'. The first one was multi-cultural and supposed to be fun, I took my kids. After that it became huge and took over - it was pure Islamic and indigenous folk fled, feeling outlawed. Crime followed, I had police-dogs through my garden following Pakistani drug-dealers. I do 'appreciate' the 'enrichment', thanks. :)
I did my first teaching practice at Drummond Road, but just before Ray's time. There was a reception centre for immigrant kids attached to the school. They were to learn enough English to cope with mainstream before being integrated. I only did a couple of sessions there. Tis excellent system was discontinued a being 'discriminatory'.
Off to bed now.
Off to bed now.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
How it Works72 mins ago
ChatterBank111 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles151 mins ago
