How Bad Was My Attempt In Approaching...
Family & Relationships4 mins ago
Sharia Law
18 Answers
why discuss sharia law on tv this afternoon when is should no be here in this country it is been used by a quarter of muslims in this country very frightening
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by redvanman. 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 certainly agree that they have no place in the UK, Sharia councils (which is what the courts are properly called) have legal status as mediation and arbitration bodies under the Arbitration Act 1996.
They claim to be impartial arbiters on solely “religious” matters but in fact they generally act for one party rather than solving disputes. They often rule on family matters such as divorces (which they have no power to grant) and child custody disputes (which they also have no power to decide). The judges are always men, they are not usually “a neutral third party” but generally make their judgements along Islamic lines where women are treated as second class trash whose evidence is not to be trusted. In short they uphold the theory and practice of the strong hold and control Muslim men have over women.
When criticised they usually say that women disagreeing with their decisions can always have the matter heard in a proper court of law. Nothing is further from the truth. Most Muslim women have no resources nor have they the confidence to take matters into their own hands, such is their subservience to men. They face abiding by the Sharia Council’s decision or will be subject to disgrace and degradation by their family. Furthermore many Muslim women wishing to divorce often feel the need to get a religious (i.e. Sharia) divorce for cultural reasons and also because if a civil divorce is not accepted by a country that follows Sharia and they have remarried, they risk the death penalty for adultery.
It is an utter disgrace that such institutions are allowed to practice in the UK. But that’s one of the prices we have paid in the failed experiment called “multiculturalism”.
They claim to be impartial arbiters on solely “religious” matters but in fact they generally act for one party rather than solving disputes. They often rule on family matters such as divorces (which they have no power to grant) and child custody disputes (which they also have no power to decide). The judges are always men, they are not usually “a neutral third party” but generally make their judgements along Islamic lines where women are treated as second class trash whose evidence is not to be trusted. In short they uphold the theory and practice of the strong hold and control Muslim men have over women.
When criticised they usually say that women disagreeing with their decisions can always have the matter heard in a proper court of law. Nothing is further from the truth. Most Muslim women have no resources nor have they the confidence to take matters into their own hands, such is their subservience to men. They face abiding by the Sharia Council’s decision or will be subject to disgrace and degradation by their family. Furthermore many Muslim women wishing to divorce often feel the need to get a religious (i.e. Sharia) divorce for cultural reasons and also because if a civil divorce is not accepted by a country that follows Sharia and they have remarried, they risk the death penalty for adultery.
It is an utter disgrace that such institutions are allowed to practice in the UK. But that’s one of the prices we have paid in the failed experiment called “multiculturalism”.
By "when is should no be here " I assume you meant "when it should not be here".
There are a lot of practices regarding treatment of women and homosexuality which would not be tolerated in this country if they were carried out by any other group. However it is important to remember that these courts are not official courts of law and do not override any of the country's laws, although new Judge rightly points out that community pressure/fear of reprisals means their decisions are rarely challenged.
There are a lot of practices regarding treatment of women and homosexuality which would not be tolerated in this country if they were carried out by any other group. However it is important to remember that these courts are not official courts of law and do not override any of the country's laws, although new Judge rightly points out that community pressure/fear of reprisals means their decisions are rarely challenged.
yeah it is allowed under the Arbitration Act
altho presumably the good bits like stoning adulterers is not on the table
or cutting off hands....
and it is one of the law options in a Cambridge law degree
Islamic Law ( use to be called Mohameddan Law )
Peregrine Simon - now lord Simon of Dingly-Dell-and-Loads-Pension got a third in it in 1971 I recall. - so I bet HE isnt an arbiter in it now !
a defence to theft is necessity I also recall - not from SImon he didnt seem to know much ...
altho presumably the good bits like stoning adulterers is not on the table
or cutting off hands....
and it is one of the law options in a Cambridge law degree
Islamic Law ( use to be called Mohameddan Law )
Peregrine Simon - now lord Simon of Dingly-Dell-and-Loads-Pension got a third in it in 1971 I recall. - so I bet HE isnt an arbiter in it now !
a defence to theft is necessity I also recall - not from SImon he didnt seem to know much ...
easy umm as I have explained to you before...
during the campaign - imagine 'bang! bang ! Booooooom!' as you read....
someone: hello PP - your lot letting off bombs again
me: no not my lot - a lot of my papist frenz are in the army as it happens .....
someone: o really ? we all know that your co-religionists are all IRA sympathisers
me: no they are not .... the english roman catholics are loya subject of her maj.....
etc . etc
I have explained this before ummmm.... perhaps you didnt bother to read it or just didnt recollect it ...
during the campaign - imagine 'bang! bang ! Booooooom!' as you read....
someone: hello PP - your lot letting off bombs again
me: no not my lot - a lot of my papist frenz are in the army as it happens .....
someone: o really ? we all know that your co-religionists are all IRA sympathisers
me: no they are not .... the english roman catholics are loya subject of her maj.....
etc . etc
I have explained this before ummmm.... perhaps you didnt bother to read it or just didnt recollect it ...
"No different to the Jewish Beth Din courts that have been in this country for decades. "
Precisely. And they should be similarly outlawed, not given legitimacy as "arbitration" tribunals. They, at best, discourage and at worst often prevent vulnerable people (almost always women) from seeking proper impartial justice under the law applicable and available to everyone else.
Precisely. And they should be similarly outlawed, not given legitimacy as "arbitration" tribunals. They, at best, discourage and at worst often prevent vulnerable people (almost always women) from seeking proper impartial justice under the law applicable and available to everyone else.
NJ in both cases - both parties have to agree to arbitration dont they ?
in all three cases - Beth Din, Sharia and common law the determinations are bound to be different sometimes because if they were all concordant there would be no point in having three different ways of deciding
[ and would be a great example of how Law really works .... erm yeah ]
and if one side loses as they usually do
then it is natch to say well if I tried one of the other systems then I would have a better chance ....
yeah I dont agree with stoning for adultery ( today anyway )
but I do agree with - if a fella is gonna take a second wife - then he has to show he can support both to the same standard of living ....
in all three cases - Beth Din, Sharia and common law the determinations are bound to be different sometimes because if they were all concordant there would be no point in having three different ways of deciding
[ and would be a great example of how Law really works .... erm yeah ]
and if one side loses as they usually do
then it is natch to say well if I tried one of the other systems then I would have a better chance ....
yeah I dont agree with stoning for adultery ( today anyway )
but I do agree with - if a fella is gonna take a second wife - then he has to show he can support both to the same standard of living ....
1 to 18 of 18
