Sharia courts set to bring Muslim law to bear in Scottish cities

Originally posted by boaby_phet
they are guests in the uk as much as people from the uk are guests of the uk!!

we never built it, we just somehow manage to get their and populate, just like anyone else.,

That's ridiculous and offensive. Are you saying my country - that my forefathers built - doesn't belong to me? England damn well does belong to me. Ethnicity is about far more than 'who got there first'. Since my ancestors arrived here they've built monuments, towns, a culture, wealth, heritage. You'd honestly say that a first or second generation immigrant has as much of a claim to this land as me? You need your head checked.

*"it doesnt effect you at all. the courts only deal with civil issues, and the sharia courts can be overturned by the county and criminal courts."*

But does it not make a mockery of the claim that muslims want to be treated as equals.....then go on to expect special treament.
Why do these people need an 'extra court' for civil matters?
What is wrong with them just using the existing ones like everybody else does?

*"The documentary was made from an outsiders perspective of a closed society. Plus, unless you work directly for the editing crew at channel four you can not make a rash decision without all the facts. We are targeted by so much scare mongering through the media, you can no longer rely on it as an honest documentary."*

A closed society?
What do you mean by that?
I suspect any decent,right minded person to be disgusted and appaulled at the hatefull,sociopathic rhetoric being preached at many mosques featured in this documentary.
As for the claims of mis-editting,these have been proven to be spurious and wrong- the producers have been completely vindicated and are in fact suing the police force for libellous distortion of fact.
Please take time to read this report:
www.birminghampost.net...


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by Cythraul

www.telegraph.co.uk... .html

"Civil rights campaigners are angry that ministers have approved plans to allow Sharia councils in Britain the right to settle disputes regarding money, property and access to children.

They say such tribunals are institutions for male domination which treat women like second-class citizens. "




[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

I say let the IRA handle this.
Bombers bombing bombers.
priceless!

reply to post by karl 12


Do you even know what a sharia court operating in another legal system does? It's 100% voluntary and for non-criminal proceedings. All parties have to volunteer to have their cases heard in a Sharia court, and it can not ever pass judgements deemed illegal by the actual law of the land. Here's another hint for you: they already exist in Scotland.

Please try to inform yourself before you start on these knee-jerk ignorant rants.

reply to post by dave420


Dave its a very simple question,why does shariah law have to exist in the UK at all and what on earth is wrong with muslims just using the existing courts and laws like everyone else?
As for a kneejerk reaction,I dont think it is as there are very real concerns regarding
sexual inequality and mysogynistic prejudice by untrained personnel fostering religious agendas in these courts.
If everybody is equal then why afford some sections of society there own court,no matter how inconsequential it may be at its initial inception?

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by karl 12

 

It's 100% voluntary and for non-criminal proceedings. Please try to inform yourself before you start on these knee-jerk ignorant rants.

Is domestic violence a non-criminal proceeding? Violence against women is a crime.

In this article sharia courts are ruling on domestic violence.

Originally posted by Aislin

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by karl 12

 

It's 100% voluntary and for non-criminal proceedings. Please try to inform yourself before you start on these knee-jerk ignorant rants.

Is domestic violence a non-criminal proceeding? Violence against women is a crime.

In this article sharia courts are ruling on domestic violence.

Thanks for the post,thats an interesting read and the abuse of legal loop holes to facilitate a religious agenda should be carefully looked at.
As for extremist islam´s view of women;this revealing article on wahhabi attitudes of non equality for the opposite sex reinforces the serious concerns by many people that these untrained,agenda based extremists should have nothing whatsoever to do with rulings,appraisals or judgements regarding women.
www.dhushara.com...

I think you'll find that in London at least, Sharia courts are already used to resolve Mulsim-Muslim conflicts of interest and private matters between individuals.

Personally as a non-Muslim I don't have any problem with this at all. Dealing with certain problems within the community, rulings being made by people that actually know the parties involved, seems preferable to resorting to the (beaurocratic, expensive) legal system.

The only reason something similar wouldn't work for non-Muslims is that we don't tend to have any community leaders. Or communities for that matter.

Regardless of the terminology, the advent of "social" courts declaring rulings under Sharia law in no way represents a change to the "law of the land".

As has been indicated, these makeshift courts are "voluntary" and in theory their ruling can only be enforced voluntarily, by all participants in a grievance. Communities all over the UK often defer to common prejudice when considering *minor* matters of behaviour - however, this is a grave extension of communal doctrine.

The theory is fine, however, we see a different picture when we consider the not-so-equal application of Sharia law to the different sexes. In an abuse case, can we be sure that the abused is treated in accordance with the rights and protection afforded to complainants?

The input of representatives of a specific community, defined by religious views for instance, should surely be aiding in the translation of national law to proffer conformance to the law of the land, not creating their own.

Can we be sure that the Sharia courts will not progress to the inception of punishment as well as judgement. America had a specific example of such "civilian" courts that we may all be mindful of: Lynch Mobs.

This is an unwelcome distraction from integrating the Muslim society into the cultural heritage of the UK and specifically Scotland. No benefit to nation or people can come of this.

reply to post by SugarCube


Sugarcube I take your point, and if we as a nation are to look at devolving minor legal matters to communities then it should be "one rule for all" rather than special treatment for practicers of a particular religion. There should also be a legal framework for appeal and accountability.

reply to post by karl 12


Because it doesn't hurt anyone. Plus there are muslim Britons who have lived in the UK for decades upon decades, longer than you have.

Sharia courts exist below the courts of the land - they can not do anything a normal court can't, but they can do things a normal court wouldn't, in accordance with Sharia law.

It is opt-in, purely by request of both parties. It's a religious observation, that's all.

Clearly you would be better off learning about Sharia law and the courts in the UK before spouting off your continued knee-jerk reactions. It's offensive to everyone, and a slap in the face to everything the UK stands for.

reply to post by Aislin


Oh the Daily Mail! It must be true, as they are a very accepting newspaper, known to love everyone not-white as much as whiteys.

Yup - the new sanctioned courts can deal with criminal cases, as the entire proceedings are overseen by the non-Sharia law courts (as in the people presiding, the objectivity, etc. etc.). The Sharia courts that have been operating in Britain ever since the first Muslim immigrants turned up could not, as they were not vetted by the law courts.

I don't see why people are so upset that a purely-voluntary law court, overseen by and held to the same standards as the traditional law courts, is a bad thing.

Get a grip, folks - you're starting to sound awfully racist, which I'm sure you're not.

reply to post by mattpryor


It is "one rule for all", only some people can choose to be tried under stricter, not more lenient, laws as well as the laws of the land. People don't choose Sharia law because it's more lenient, but because it's a religious observance, and stricter than normal courts.

This is just knee-jerk xenophobia at its most repugnant.

reply to post by dave420


I think you've misrepresented me a bit here Dave420. I am in agreement with you, I was just pointing out that it would be nice if there was a similar community-based system for resolving disputes between non-Muslims as well. I wouldn't be in favour of this being a religious practice though.

To be honest, who are any of us to judge how other people resolve their personal matters when they don't affect us in any way?

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by karl 12

 

Dave I think it is now you who is engaging in emotional kneejerk reactions (whilst conveniently not addressing any of the quite valid points raised).
Also,wild eyed insinuation that the newspaper involved in reporting these turn of events is inherently prejudice whilst blatantly ignoring what the article actualy says is a bit of a copout and the sign of a weak argument.
As for screaming racism,islam,like all non provable religious beleif systems, is
´an opnion based on speculation and conjecture´
and not
´an actual geographical location´.



[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

reply to post by mattpryor


I apologise profusely - I guess I got the wrong end of the stick.

Technically, anyone can resolve non-criminal disputes between them any way they want - all it takes is a contract. You could even play tiddly-winks to settle disputes if you wanted.

I say let them have their courts. No-one is being forced to follow Sharia law, and as such it is about as benign as you can get.

Originally posted by AmbroseRokewood
sharia law just effects muslims and not the general populus. plus they only deal with domestic and personal issues, they do not override the British law courts.

At first it will deal only with minor matters of family, however, the pattern of Sharia law is to invade by incrementalism until there is a firm legal foothold. Then they gradually increase the pervasiveness of the Sharia system and the severity of the penalties, being challenged in secular courts and winning a few here and there, until the secular laws either coincide with Sharia law or no longer have jurisdiction because of legal precedent. Look at other countries where Sharia law has been allowed to coexist with secular law. Sharia law gradually gains more and more power, and before you know it they are chopping off hands for stealing, beheading people for blasphemy, and honor killing girls for innocently walking down the wrong side of the street; the secular government is powerless to stop it. Many middle eastern nations have secular laws against this stuff, but they cannot be enforced because Sharia is so entrenched culturally and extremist clerics have used legal precedent to undermine the legal system.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by OuttaHere]

I don't see a problem in it, if that's what both parties want when it comes to settling domestic problems. There's nothing to stop Christian churches from establishing similar organisations, if that is their wish. Free country n'all.

But I have issues with the terminology used. It's not a court & never will be. It's operating completely outside the Scots legal system & that has to be made clear. And I've real concerns if folks are being coerced by their own community into using this system of arbitration rather than using long established legal avenues instead.

Although I freely admit, like most Scots, I know next to nothing about Sharia law. I only see wild headlines about women in the middle east being stoned to death for adultery, thieves having their hands amputated, gays being hanged and such like. I'm not entirely sure that'd go down too well on Sauchiehall Street, somehow.

reply to post by OuttaHere



Outtahere I couldn´t agree more with your comments.
As for wahhabi islam´s opinion on women,it seems this sharia court in Somalia has just sentenced a women to be stoned to death for the alledged act of adultery:
www.bloomberg.com...

"Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- A 23-year-old Somali woman was stoned to death in Kismayo after being convicted of adultery in a Shariah court established by Islamists who control the southern port city, an eyewitness said.

Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was buried in the ground up to her neck and her head covered with a black sack before she was executed yesterday, Yusuf Abdi Mohamed, a resident who attended the public event, said in a phone interview today from Kismayo, 500 kilometers (310 miles) southwest of the capital, Mogadishu. "

I found this bit particularly relevant:
" Shariah courts operate under a code of Islamic principles first established in the Arab world by the Muslim prophet Muhammad in the seventh century. Adultery is banned by Shariah law."

More tales of stoning,scalding and general outrages visited upon women by strict,extremist islamic beleif:
www.dhushara.com...


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]