Why are the Muslims in the UK a bigger problem . . .

[Bolero]

I used to be so much more culturally "tolerant" that I am these days, but the more contact I have with people from Muslim cultures (which is a lot in my current job), the more distressed I become at their - frankly - hideous faith. I think the so-called liberals who advocate no-holds-barred multiculturalism are really just people who've taken an ideological stance on something they have very little knowledge of. The US has these people too, but then the US doesn't have an ex-empire on its doorstep wanting a place to stay now that the colonies have gone to shit.

[Surendra Darathy]

I used to be so much more culturally "tolerant" that I am these days, but the more contact I have with people from Muslim cultures (which is a lot in my current job), the more distressed I become at their - frankly - hideous faith. I think the so-called liberals who advocate no-holds-barred multiculturalism are really just people who've taken an ideological stance on something they have very little knowledge of. The US has these people too, but then the US doesn't have an ex-empire on its doorstep wanting a place to stay now that the colonies have gone to shit.

Well, actually, they do. Someday the religion of the Inca Sun God, Inti, will be restored and everyone will be a citizen of Tawantinsuyo!

[Pappa]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

The Sharia Courts here are actually a form of organized mediation. There are lots of other types too, usually involving councilors and stuff like that. The point of the system is that the two parties voluntarily agree to the system of mediation in place of the court having to decide. It's cheaper and more amicable. Unfortunately, in the case of Sharia Court mediation, it doesn't account for the cultural practices and the likelihood that one of the parties may be entering mediation against their will. In theory it's a good idea, but when one or more of the parties feels they are unable to refuse the system or ruling and go to court instead, then obviously there's a real problem.

[Trolldor]

If it were secular mediation that would be okay.

It's Sharia mediation, it's bullshit, voluntary or not.

[...Idle]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

They are not legally binding, it is just a symbolic thing. And also remember in some cases these courts actually empower the women, since they can actually get a religiously binding divorce. For example, if the husband is being a cock the wife can get the marriage/Nikah annulled by the Sharia court. Since Muslims have a Muslim marriage, if a Muslim woman goes to a secular court and gets a divorce, it does not mean much since religiously the husband is still married to the woman, so in many cases the women approach these courts to get the marriage annulled, and then she is free to marry someone else. In Islam if there is no sharia court then a woman cannot get a divorce, she can only get a divorce if the husband decides to give her one.

Now, some Muslim women have had secular divorce which is legally binding under British law, but the husband refuses to give a religious divorce, the woman is screwed she has no power as Islamically speaking she is still married to her husband, and she cannot marry another man, no Imam would do another marriage/nikah while she is still religiously married to the husband. So what happens is when a woman gets secular divorce from the court, she takes this as proof to the sharia court and the sharia court null the marriage, then she is free.

I think they should be allowed, to operate under the authority of secular courts. I personally think it helps women, as in many cases mostly it is the women who go to these courts.

It also helps to save tax money, and frees the courts to deal with criminal issues. I think that is why the British government tolerates them.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There are also jewish courts (beth din) operating in the UK in a very similar manner. They grant divorces, issue certificates of kosherness to restaurants, etc. They too have no legal status, purely a cultural/religious one.

[Coito ergo sum]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

Youd have to define what you mean by the phrase 'bigger problem'

A problem that is of greater size or significance than another problem?

But regarding Sharia courts, if the juristriction is properly controlled, and the law of the land is the higher in the case of a clash, the system can and does work;

Except that there are inherently discriminatory and misogynistic rules in Sha'ria and it appears to be inherently in conflict with western post-Enlightenment legal systems such that if one applies the law of the land of say, England, to preempt Sha'ria then Sha'ria is, in effect, not being allowed.

I lived in The Gambia (west Africa) for a decade and thats exactly what they had there.
Issues of islamic marriage and so on were dealt with by the Sharia court,

Which would allow Sha'ria laws, like those involving wife beating, and presuming the Qu'ranic male-dominance and unequal decision making authority to prevail. That is not consistent with present day English law.

things like traffic laws and murder by the high courts etc.

Do you suggest that two people (presumably muslim) wishing to be judged by the sharia system can not be, if both agree to the settlement there in, isnt it a bit like a cheaper (it is a lot cheaper) and more amicable way than the law courts, where thingss can be sorted out? Whats the 'big problem' you refer to?

A big problem is with ensuring that the female is actually truly "agreeing" to anything. When Sha'ria law says that she must defer to her husband, it is really her husband that is "agreeing" for the both of them.

[Coito ergo sum]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

They are not legally binding, it is just a symbolic thing.

No, they are legally binding, like private arbitration. They aren't technically "compulsory" like a court system. They require the parties to submit disputes "voluntarily" to the Sha'ria court to act as an arbitrator. But, once submitted, the result will be legally binding. As I mentioned before, one real issue is the oppression of women in this system, where they really don't have a free choice and little recourse.

[...Idle]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

They are not legally binding, it is just a symbolic thing.

No, they are legally binding, like private arbitration. They aren't technically "compulsory" like a court system. They require the parties to submit disputes "voluntarily" to the Sha'ria court to act as an arbitrator. But, once submitted, the result will be legally binding. As I mentioned before, one real issue is the oppression of women in this system, where they really don't have a free choice and little recourse.

I did not think they were legally binding, I thought they were religiously binding.

[Coito ergo sum]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

They are not legally binding, it is just a symbolic thing.

No, they are legally binding, like private arbitration. They aren't technically "compulsory" like a court system. They require the parties to submit disputes "voluntarily" to the Sha'ria court to act as an arbitrator. But, once submitted, the result will be legally binding. As I mentioned before, one real issue is the oppression of women in this system, where they really don't have a free choice and little recourse.

I did not think they were legally binding, I thought they were religiously binding.

If a divorce is submitted to a Sharia court, the judgment of the court is legally binding. They make decisions on whether to grant the divorce and the division of property, custody of the children, etc. Otherwise, what would be the point?

[Pappa]

I did not think they were legally binding, I thought they were religiously binding.

If a divorce is submitted to a Sharia court, the judgment of the court is legally binding. They make decisions on whether to grant the divorce and the division of property, custody of the children, etc. Otherwise, what would be the point?

You can always go back to court if you don't like the judgment though, as you can with all other forums of mediation... so it's legally binding because you agree to the judgment.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

. . .than the ones in the US? I mean really, "Sharia courts"? If anybody tried to set up their own court system in the US they'd be handed their ass PDQ. What's up with that shit?

They are not legally binding, it is just a symbolic thing.

No, they are legally binding, like private arbitration. They aren't technically "compulsory" like a court system. They require the parties to submit disputes "voluntarily" to the Sha'ria court to act as an arbitrator. But, once submitted, the result will be legally binding. As I mentioned before, one real issue is the oppression of women in this system, where they really don't have a free choice and little recourse.

I did not think they were legally binding, I thought they were religiously binding.

If a divorce is submitted to a Sharia court, the judgment of the court is legally binding. They make decisions on whether to grant the divorce and the division of property, custody of the children, etc. Otherwise, what would be the point?

From Wikipedia.

The Islamic Sharia Council is a London-based, quasi-Islamic court that provides legal rulings and advice to Muslims in accordance with Islamic Sharia based on the four Sunni schools of thought. It primarily handles cases of marriage and divorce and, to a lesser extent business and finance. The council has no legal authority or jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

[Coito ergo sum]

The Islamic Sharia Council is a London-based, quasi-Islamic court that provides legal rulings and advice to Muslims in accordance with Islamic Sharia based on the four Sunni schools of thought. It primarily handles cases of marriage and divorce and, to a lesser extent business and finance. The council has no legal authority or jurisdiction in the United Kingdom.

A court that has no legal authority cannot possibly handle a divorce, because it cannot enter a divorce decree, assign custody and visitation rights, divide property, impose alimony or separate maintenance, and do such other things that are necessary in a divorce.

We have sunk further and quicker than we thought possible. Today we learned that sharia courts (which have operated illegally in Britain until now) are being re-classed as tribunal hearings, making their judgments legally binding. According to the Daily Express, “new powers have been given to tribunals in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.” According to the Daily Mail, this “[…] new network of courts […] agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by the county courts or the High Court.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... itain.html

Under the IK Arbitration Act of 1996, 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. The problem is that women are basically dragged before these tribunals, not of their own volition.

\

[Trolldor]

The problem is that women are basically dragged before these tribunals, not of their own volition.

True or not, claim requires substantiation as it's a fairly hefty one.

[Coito ergo sum]

I did not think they were legally binding, I thought they were religiously binding.

If a divorce is submitted to a Sharia court, the judgment of the court is legally binding. They make decisions on whether to grant the divorce and the division of property, custody of the children, etc. Otherwise, what would be the point?

You can always go back to court if you don't like the judgment though, as you can with all other forums of mediation... so it's legally binding because you agree to the judgment.

No - you agree to submit the claim/case to the Sha'ria court, and in advance you agree to be bound by its judgment. You don't just get to go to court again if you "don't like" the judgment. The Sha'ria court judgment is itself binding and the full force of the British legal system are behind them. You can't just sue again if you don't like the judgment. You can appeal, but appeals are usually lost because the standard of review is based on something like an "abuse of discretion" standard, and not a "de novo" rehearing of the case.