From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
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
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
UKs first official sharia courts
by betterdaze 15 Replies latest social current
-
betterdaze
-
jamiebowers
I wonder how much, if any protection is offered to Muslim women who prefer to use the British court system. The ones who have agreed to the sharia courts have already been shortchanged during the domestic violence and inheritance cases. I also wonder how the sharia courts can try criminal cases when the Jewish courts only deal with civil cases.
-
mustang
Singapore has had this for ages. You can do a "payroll deduction" that goes to the Mosque Building Fund.
Mustang
-
mustang
This needs to be kept in mind in the USA: our ESTABLISMENT CLAUSE precludes the government establishing or favoring a particular religion. Smart move: sHARIA cOURT is technically illegal here. That is the way it should be.
By contrast, Sing's MRHA goes the other way: let them have their concession. But that's it. It is also illegal to convert another there under "strained" circumstances: duress, in other words.
Conversion goes both ways: Christians are remembered for historical "gunboat" activities. But Muslims aren't allowed to jihad their way down the streets, either.
Mustang
-
betterdaze
***This needs to be kept in mind in the USA: our ESTABLISMENT CLAUSE precludes the government establishing or favoring a particular religion.***
CORRECT.
***sHARIA cOURT is technically illegal here***
INCORRECT.
The Watchtower corporation modeled its judicial committee "arrangement" after the Orthodox Jewish "beth din" courts established right here on U.S. soil over 150 years ago.
The U.S. recognizes the validity of proceedings at Orthodox Jewish "battei din" — panels of three Rabbinic judges — even when they are not in strict compliance with arbitration laws, largely
because the parties "knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the proceedings."
As of 1985, JWs "knowingly and voluntarily" agree at baptism that they are "in association with God's spirit-directed organization." That association can be terminated at will by a Watchtower
religious court (judicial committee). The 1985 change in Watchtower baptismal vows was solely for the legal protection of the corporation, to circumvent coercion, libel, fraud cases, etc.
And it has been ruled in U.S. courts that a beth din that ignores established legal concepts (like allowing recording devices or outside representation) is not "misconduct." If the accused
refuses to submit to the beth din's jurisdiction, the tribunal can still publish a "seruv" (contempt citation). Similar to announcing, "So-and-so is no longer a Jehovah's Witness." The accused can
then be sanctioned within the congregation ("privileges" removed), or suffer complete and total ostracism within the community (what we would call disfellowshipping). Under civil law, this does not
constitute coercion or libel.
Religious courts, whether Jewish battei din, Watchtower judicial committees, or those administering Islamic Sharia law, are allowed to flourish in the U.S. *because* of the establishment clause.
Their rulings are legally binding and enforceable in the secular court system *in spite of civil law* because civil courts have *no jurisdiction* to determine if ecclesiastical decisions are valid.
~Sue -
betterdaze
US surpasses Iraqi refugee admissions goal
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ieqkwUlK6WxXWFk_gh89h8I-TU2QD93591JG7
* * *
U.S. to Admit 17,000 Iraqi Exiles
5,000 More Refugees to Receive Special Visas Next Fiscal Year
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091203067.html -
LDH
I'm not sure what admitting Iraqis has to do with anything....they never did a damn thing to us. it's a miracle there's not more refugees.
However, you are correct in what you state. ALL churches have ecclesiatical protection. That's the rub./
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.
Of course, it doesn't matter that the person has been a student of the religion for so long they effectively had NO CHOICE in the matter, as is the case with thousands of JWs disfellowshipped annually.
In fact, the JWs mete out their OWN justice. That's why they never report pedophiles in the congregations unless there is a mandatory reporting law in that state. They will tell you it is a 'spiritual' sin. Not a criminal one.
Mustang you're wrong on this one. It's a matter of time before we recognize the Muslims right to govern themselves. Just a matter of time.
-
mustang
BetterDaze:
You are INCORRECT. Or perhaps I need to rephrase:
I am not speaking of Religious Tribunals under Church Law. I do have the precedents that WTS uses (re: the Hutterites). These precedents are how they defuse lawsuits over DF'ing. In that fashion you are correct.
But I am not talking about the CHURCH LAW tribunals allowed WITHIN a church by US SECULAR LAW.
(SECULAR LAW may be viewed as "law of the land" for this purpose.)
I am talking about real SECULAR LAW, w/ citations and municipal, state or federal court authority. Viewing that, sHARIA lAW cannot be allowed to become an authoritative vehicle: read the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
Mustang
-
mustang
The Hutterite decision & others were mentioned on this forum back about page 1000 or so. The Secular Courts do not want to go there and let Religious Courts alone to deal with AFFAIRS WITHIN THE CHURCH. But the minute it goes outside the Church, it will be a Constitutional issue.
Supreme Court, here we come. Unlike most countires, the US set up a partial or wholly religious governmental operation to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Islam wants RELIGION to have a heavy say in the Law of the land; that is a fundamental contradiction in the philosophies. I don't see the USA changing the rules for the sensibilities of those who only this 3rd century are appearing.
Mustang
-
BurnTheShips
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.
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.”But doesn't submission to arbitration have to be voluntary? Without voluntary submission, a Muslim can appeal to the state court system instead. I think that all this means is that if a Muslim voluntarily submits to a sharia law based arbitration that then it is enforceable. But the initial act of submission must be voluntary. Am I missing something?
BTS