PDA

View Full Version : Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts Full Power to Rule on Civil Cases



AlmostThere
09-15-2008, 06:54 PM
Great Britain has surrendered.

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

Sharia courts deciding matters of domestic violence??

Sonnabend
09-15-2008, 06:59 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
Abul Taher


ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.Yeah right...allowing Muslims to rule on domestic violence is like making Hannibal Lecter the Minster for Food.


Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.You won't see that here. When does Britain start paying jizya?


It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996. 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.Alas poor England, we knew ye well.


Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”Wonder when they will start the stonings?


The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain. In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

The word you are looking for is dhimmitude.


In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours. It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.How many lashes did the woman get for complaining when her husband beat the living shit out of her?


Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Isn't that what the POLICE are for?


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.Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Last time I checked, Jewish courts didnt imprison a woman for the crime of being raped.


Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.” Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK


There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men. Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.Gee..I wonder why that would be.....:rolleyes:


The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.Shock..horror...surprise...:rolleyes:


In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Res ipsa loquitur.


Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.Yeah, now they beat them where it doesnt show and they know that if they complain, they die.


Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks
Funny..as I seem to recall, Britain already has courts. Or do they now bow to Mecca as well?

bijou
09-15-2008, 07:16 PM
Merged ....

FlaGator
09-15-2008, 08:02 PM
Merged ....

There is much irony in that comment!

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 10:00 PM
a bunch of damned idiots. Get out of Britian while you can if you like freedom.

Odysseus
09-15-2008, 10:59 PM
a bunch of damned idiots. Get out of Britian while you can if you like freedom.

The British have no idea what they've done. When legal issues arise between Moslems and non-Moslems, the Moslems will claim that they are only subject to Islamic law, and therefore any cases involving them must go to the Sharia courts, where the testimony of an infidel is inadmissable, so there will be no recourse for contractual disputes or torts between Moslems and Brits, at least for the Brits. Eventually, the Sharia courts will demand control of criminal procedings as well, but first, they will claim jurisdiction over all cases involving Moslems, whether they like it or not. The worst impact will be on moderate Moslems, who sought to leave that insanity behind them in the Middle East. A Moslem who tries to have a case heard in a British court will be accused of apostasy, which puts his or her life at risk, since any good Moslem would allow the case to go before the Sharia court. That's why the daughters consented to allow a Sharia court to hear their inheritance case. Had they refused, they'd have singled themselves out for retribution for denying Islam, which carries a death sentence. Far safer to settle for half an inheritance than be murdered for denying the prophet.

The British have given themselves over to their enemies, but first they have betrayed those Moslems who had hoped to become British.

AlmostThere
09-15-2008, 11:17 PM
I wasn't trying to be melodramatic. Great Britain has indeed surrendered and radical Islam will take possession of Britain in the courtroom.

Scarlet
09-16-2008, 12:28 AM
I thought they had, or tried to have, this in parts of Canada?
I have also never heard of a Jewish court.
________
Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

FuroraCeltica
09-16-2008, 05:47 AM
a bunch of damned idiots. Get out of Britian while you can if you like freedom.

Everyone I know in Britain is trying to escape. Our country has been ruined by liberals and the European Union :mad:

bijou
09-16-2008, 07:32 AM
I thought they had, or tried to have, this in parts of Canada?
I have also never heard of a Jewish court.


Jewish life in England goes back almost 1000 years. It is believed that the first Jews were brought over from Normandy by William the Conqueror in 1066; there is reference to Jews in Oxford as early as 1075 and the Domesday Book of 1086 records the Jew Mennasseh owning land in Oxfordshire.

Several Baalei Tosafot (commentators) lived in England including R.Yaakov MiOrleans, (martyred in London at the coronation of Richard the Lionheart in 1189), R. YomTov MiYoigny, author of Omnam Kein recited on Yom Kippur Maariv (martyred in the York massacre of 1190) and the R'i MiLondri, mentioned in the Remo in Hilchot Pesach (Siman 473 Sif 76 ) as recommending the recitation of the Hagadah in the vernacular.

In 1290, however, Jewish life in England came to abrupt end when the Edict of Expulsion was proclaimed by King Edward I, resulting in the banishment of the entire Jewish Population from Britain. The Edict was issued on 18th July, which that year was the Fast of Tisha B'Av.

1656 - The Resettlement

England remained "Yudenrein" until 1656 when R. Menashe Ben Israel successfully petitioned Oliver Cromwell to allow the readmission of Jews. It is said that Menashe Ben Israel pressed Oliver Cromwell on the grounds that England -Angleterre- was one of the four "angles" of the earth referred to in the prophecies of the ingathering of the exiles, and thus resettlement would hasten the coming of the Messiah!

Within only 50 years the offices of the Chief Rabbi and the London Beth Din came into being to provide central religious authority for Jewish communities in London and throughout the United Kingdom - a role reflected in the London Beth Din's official title "D'Kehila Kedosha London Bet Din Vehamedina" - The Beth Din of London and the Country. This national role has become increasingly important in recent years with the decline of Jewish communities and local Batei Din in Britain.

Among the early Chief Rabbis who helped establish the central Orthodox authority for which the UK is renowned was R. Dovid Tevele Schiff (Chief Rabbi 1765-1791), whose explanations on the Mishna, Lashon Hazahav, is printed in the Yachin Uboaz Mishnayot, and R. Nosson Adler (Chief Rabbi 1845-1890) author of the famous commentary on the Targum Nesina LaGer.

HaRav Yechezkel Abramsky

In 1934 the prestige of the London Beth Din as a world ranking halachic authority was greatly enhanced with the appointment of the Gaon HaRav Yechezkel Abramsky (the Chazon Yecheskel) as Rosh Beth Din. Although other renowned Talmidei Chachamim served both during and since his time - such as Dayan Arieh Leib Grosnass (Lev Aryeh) and Dayan Rapaport (Be'er Avroham), it was Dayan Abramsky above all who established the policies and customs that are followed by the London Beth Din to this day.

Av Beth Din , Rosh Beth Din and Senior Dayan

Since 1984, the Rosh Beth Din has been Dayan Chanoch HaCohen Ehrentreu ,formerly Rosh Beth Din and Communal Rabbi of Manchester, and previously Rosh Kollel Sunderland. Dayan Ehrentreu retires from the Beth Din in January 2007 and will retain his links as a Consultant to the Beth Din. Serving together with him is Dayan Menachem Gelley (son of R. Zacharia Gelley of Washington Heights), who will become the Senior Dayan in January 2007, Dayan Yonason Abraham, Dayan Ivan Binstock and Dayan Shmuel Simons. The title of Av Beth Din is formally held by the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, whose high profile as an international religious leader and author and lecturer of renown has done so much to enhance the stature of Orthodoxy both nationally and internationally. By dint of his extensive workload as well as convention of his office, the Chief Rabbi is not generally personally involved in day to day Beth Din work, but remains in constant contact with the Dayanim.


The activities of the London Beth Din encompass all aspects of London Beth Din work including Dinei Torah (court cases), Gittin (divorces), Geirut (conversions), Shechita (Jewish slaughter), Kashrut, personal status, and all the trials and tribulations of major community life. The central authority of the London Beth Din is such that by convention neither the Kedassia, Manchester, nor Sephardi Batei Din carry out Geirut in the UK and virtually all authority in this critical area is delegated to the London Beth Din.

United Synagogue

The London Beth Din is a major department of the United Synagogue, the main Orthodox synagogue grouping in Britain, which was established by Act of Parliament in 1870. The United Synagogue has over 60 communities throughout London and encompasses the full spectrum of Orthodox community facilities including schools, Chadarim, Mikvaot (ritual baths), Chevra Kadisha (burial society), Batei Olam (cemetries) and Tribe (The Young United Syangogue).
http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/

bijou
09-16-2008, 08:51 AM
February 08, 2008
Good News! Shari'a Law in Texas!

Assalam aleikum, y'all!

The Second Court of Appeals of the State of Texas has rendered a ruling on the enforceability of shari'a judgments rendered by imams. According to the Texas appeals court, it's all good.

You've heard of the Texas Courts. Ladies and gentlemen, make way for the Texas Islamic Courts!!!

The parties will ask the courts to refer the cases for arbitration to Texas Islamic court within "Seven Days" from the establishment of the Texas Islamic Court panel of Arbitrators. The assignment must include ALL cases, including those filed against or on behalf of other family members related to the parties. Each party will notify the other party, Texas Islamic Court, and their respective attorneys, in writing of the assignment of all the above Cause Numbers from the above appropriate District Court to Texas Islamic Court.

In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development.http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/191148.php

http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=14601

Gingersnap
09-16-2008, 09:23 AM
Orthodox Jews do have their own bodies to rule on many aspects of community life. The reason this more or less flies under the radar is because these rulings only apply to Jews (or very rarely) to the Gentile spouses of Jews. Even so, some of the rulings still have a civil component that needs to be addressed by the state, such as divorce.

At the moment, the situation in the UK wouldn't involve infidels or pagans unless they agreed to bound by the rulings for some reason.

Odysseus
09-16-2008, 09:49 AM
Orthodox Jews do have their own bodies to rule on many aspects of community life. The reason this more or less flies under the radar is because these rulings only apply to Jews (or very rarely) to the Gentile spouses of Jews. Even so, some of the rulings still have a civil component that needs to be addressed by the state, such as divorce.

At the moment, the situation in the UK wouldn't involve infidels or pagans unless they agreed to bound by the rulings for some reason.

Good points, but keep in mind that sooner or later, a Moslem will convince an infidel to take a case to arbitration, or convince a judge that the Sharia court is the appropriate arbitrator, and that will open the floodgate. Remember that in a Sharia court, it takes two women to equal the testimony of one man, and an infidel cannot testify against a Moslem. Any Moslem with a dispute with an infidel would be an idiot not to take his case to a Sharia court.

Another reason that the Jewish courts don't raise any hackles is that they are subject to civil law and cannot impose decisions contrary to it. The Sharia courts deny the legitimacy of civil courts and impose unequal settlements based on gender, religion and other factors that have nothing to do with the merits of the case. They also claim jurisdiction over all Moslems, whether they want to be under their jurisdiction or not, while Jewish courts do not mandate jurisdiction over all Jews. As a result, a Jew who chooses not to take his or her case to the Jewish court will not be attacked as an apostate, but any Moslem who seeks to go to a civil court will be attacked as having denied the authority of Islam and will be under threat of death.

Unless Britain acts decisively to eliminate these courts, they will undermine the English Common Law at every turn and eventually supplant it.

Gingersnap
09-16-2008, 10:00 AM
Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing.

Religious courts are for religious people and can't apply to outsiders. This is the way we have been doing it over the past several hundred years and I'm happy about it. Canon law applies to Catholics, the LDS have their own arbitration methods, and the Copts deal with Coptic issues according to their own traditions. This is great. There would be a big problem, however, if my Catholic neighbor insisted that we see a priest to mediate an easement issue.

I have no doubt that a lot of cultural Muslims would be happy to drag the rest of us into a religious court which automatically favors them. We simply have to laugh when they propose this.

Odysseus
09-16-2008, 10:16 AM
Oh, I'm not saying it's a good thing.
Religious courts are for religious people and can't apply to outsiders. This is the way we have been doing it over the past several hundred years and I'm happy about it. Canon law applies to Catholics, the LDS have their own arbitration methods, and the Copts deal with Coptic issues according to their own traditions. This is great. There would be a big problem, however, if my Catholic neighbor insisted that we see a priest to mediate an easement issue.

I have no doubt that a lot of cultural Muslims would be happy to drag the rest of us into a religious court which automatically favors them. We simply have to laugh when they propose this.

I didn't mean to imply that you did.

Each of the religions or sects that you described understands that they must pursue their faiths separately from the enforcement of civil law. Christianity and Judaism were formed under hostile states (Rome and Egypt, respectively), and have basic philosophical underpinnings that reflect that. The admonition to "render unto Caesar" is a reflection of the knowledge that the laws of the state must be complied with, even as you seek to live by the laws of God, and the Talmud was written as a means of maintaining the traditions and requirements of Judaism in exile from Judea. Islam, OTOH, has never conceived of a secular sphere, but assumes that it will conquer all others, and that those who resist have only those rights which the faithful are willing to begrudge them. Once Sharia is permitted in cases involving devout Moslems, it will be imposed on secular Moslems on pain of death, and on non-Moslems through politically correct guilt mongering or the manipulation of the courts. This is another step on the road to the new caliphate of Eurabia.

biccat
09-16-2008, 11:10 AM
At the moment, the situation in the UK wouldn't involve infidels or pagans unless they agreed to bound by the rulings for some reason.
Don't worry, infidels will be forced into these courts by some means. My guess is that infidels will agree to enter Sharia courts instead of being killed.

GrumpyOldLady
09-16-2008, 12:31 PM
MAJOR MISTAKE!!!

What a mess.

Chamberlain would be proud.

:(

noonwitch
09-16-2008, 03:28 PM
As a woman, I'm really glad I'm not a british citizen.

I can just see the mess-we have problems here when an american woman marries a muslim and they then get divorced. A former coworker of mine went through a nasty divorce like that-she got custody, but only because she knows american law better than her ex did.

We have an agency in the Detroit area called ACCESS, that serves the arabic and chaldean population. They do a pretty good job, but their job is to help arabs and chaldeans adjust to our system, not the other way around. If a woman wants to get away from an abusive husband, they will help her do so and help her keep custody of the kids. But giving muslims separate courts of their own is wrong-the only people we do that for are native americans (regarding custody issues and crimes on tribal lands) and that is only because there was a treaty that specified such treatment.

If muslims get sharia court, than shouldn't every religious group get their own courts?

PoliCon
09-16-2008, 05:59 PM
Here's the difference between Jewish and sharia courts. Jews are not bent on converting the whole world to their faith by hook or by sword.

Odysseus
09-16-2008, 06:17 PM
If muslims get sharia court, than shouldn't every religious group get their own courts?

If Moslems get their own Sharia courts, then eventually, no one will have any courts but those. That's their intent. First, moderate Moslems will be obligated to go to Sharia courts under threat of denunciation as apostates. Then, non-Moslems who do business with Moslems will be forced into Sharia courts through intimidation ("You won't submit to arbitration? Are you a racist?"). Eventually, the only people going to the civil courts will be Brits involved in disputes with other Brits, but even that understates the problem. Once all interactions between Moslems and non-Moslems become tilted in favor of the Moslems, non-Moslem emigration from Britain will accelerate, which, combined with the disparate birth rates, will guarantee a Moslem Britain within a century.

Elspeth
09-16-2008, 09:10 PM
Everyone I know in Britain is trying to escape. Our country has been ruined by liberals and the European Union :mad:

Sharia is a horrible, horrible law.

Someone I know who recently retired from the Pentagon says that Europe will be Muslim in a generation. Does that seem right to you?

OwlMBA
09-16-2008, 11:35 PM
If you want to know where the US will be in ten years, just look at Europe.

Wont be long until we have cities and states doing the same thing here. Michigan will be the first.

Odysseus
09-17-2008, 09:41 AM
Sharia is a horrible, horrible law.
Someone I know who recently retired from the Pentagon says that Europe will be Muslim in a generation. Does that seem right to you?
Bernard Lewis was interviewed a few years back and he said that it would take less than a century. There are certainly a lot of variables, but the critical things to look at are emigration rates, immigration rates and birth rates. The birth rates are the first critical issue. Given two populations, one with a birthrate of 1.6 children per woman and one with a birthrate of 4.6 per woman (the Non-Moslem and Moslem birthrates for Europe), 200 men and women (100 couples) in each group will produce 160 and 460 children, which translates to 80 couples and 230 couples, from the original 100. The next generation will be 64 couples and 529 couples. The third generation will produce 51 and 1216 couples. So, in three generations, the non-Moslem population halves, and the Moslem population increases twelvefold. Now, throw in the tendency of Europeans to delay family formation (educated women tend to marry and have children later in life, which is also one of the factors in the lower overall birthrate), while Moslem couples form up much younger, so it's likely that there would be four Moslem generations to three European ones, resulting in another doubling of the number of Moslem births. Then throw in emigration of Non-Moslems from Europe and immigration of Moslems to Europe and the numbers skew even faster. The only question becomes the original percentages of the population each group comprises and you can chart exactly when the Islamic population will overtake the non-Islamic. Of course, there is another issue, which is that Moslems in Europe tend to be highly concentrated in urban areas, so even if they are not a majority in Britain, the could very well become a majority in some key cities, which could make them an effective political majority.

If you want to know where the US will be in ten years, just look at Europe.
Wont be long until we have cities and states doing the same thing here. Michigan will be the first.
Not too likely. First, we have a constitutional aversion to religious law, and while the ACLU would turn a blind eye to Sharia, a lot of other American institutions would oppose it with vigor. Second, our welfare and immigration systems are nowhere near as conducive to mass immigration from Moslem countries as Europe's are (we are far more likely to be overwhelmed by Latino immigration than Moslem). Third, our response to violent extremism tends to be a bit more robust than the Europeans'. 9/11 galvanized most of us to take on the terrorists, while the Madrid bombings cowed the Spanish. Finally, as blinkered and benighted as most liberals are, a significant Moslem enclave in the US that became as violent, misogynistic and dangerous as the Paris suburbs would arouse massive resistance to further immigration, and unlike Europe, our elites don't have enough control of the political processes to prevent that resistance from being felt at the polls. Of course, the immigration and welfare rules could change, depending on who is elected, but if that were the case, the backlash would be even more extreme when it finally came.

Goldwater
09-17-2008, 10:06 AM
I like how this has been misunderstood and Britain is now Iran.

In a free society, people can enter into private contractual agreements involving religion (that means any religion) if they want to, they aren't being forced and Judaism has had a similar set up in Britain for a while.

Odysseus
09-17-2008, 12:03 PM
I like how this has been misunderstood and Britain is now Iran.

In a free society, people can enter into private contractual agreements involving religion (that means any religion) if they want to, they aren't being forced and Judaism has had a similar set up in Britain for a while.

What you are failing to take into account is that the Sharia courts have unique aspects which will expand their jurisdiction to anyone who they can plausibly call a Moslem and who does not want to risk his or her life over a tort or contract issue, and which will gradually force non-Moslems who have dealings with Moslems to appeal to the same courts. In addition, the specifics of Sharia law, the differences in the weight of testimony (or even its admissability) based on religion and gender, the disparate settlements between men and women in financial, marital and custody issues and even the basic evidentiary rules and presumptions are in direct conflict with English Common Law, while the Talmudic Law used in the Jewish courts are, by their very nature, designed to permit flexibility in order to ensure compliance with the broader national laws. A Sharia legal code in which the value of evidence, proportion of settlements and the presumptions of guilt are weighed according to the gender and religion of the litigants is incompatible with western legal frameworks that emphasize the equality of all litigants before the bar. Also, keep in mind that of the four major schools of Sharia, it is the Salafist school, derived from the Saudi Wahabbi Sunni sect, which is being applied, and this is the most virulently anti-modern of all of the Islamic schools of judicial thought.

Again, this will end badly.

PoliCon
09-17-2008, 06:35 PM
I like how this has been misunderstood and Britain is now Iran.

In a free society, people can enter into private contractual agreements involving religion (that means any religion) if they want to, they aren't being forced and Judaism has had a similar set up in Britain for a while.If two parties want to agree to binding arbitration through a non-civil court entity -that's fine. The trouble is - That's not the limit of Sharia. Furthermore - Judiams - as I have said before is a hereditary religion - meaning the accept very few converts. Islam is an historically violent expansionist religion with a long history of subjugation and a abuse of non-muslims. It's idiocy to give them even a foothold.