Sharia courts in the UK

[bam]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Sharia courts have been given a licence to enforce their crooked and biased interpretation of certain legal matters, official censure of sexism is definitely a step backward in this country.

You keep banging this drum, insisting that Sharia courts are now "official" and their decrees suddenly enforceable.
The article provides no support for its claim of officialdom or a timeframe of when "previously" is in the line "Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced".

The fact remains that no tacit acceptance has been made by anyone regarding Sharia courts beyond those willing to submit themselves to their judgements.

I imagine you are by now fully aware of the situation (having availed yourself of the opsi website and their publication of the act online; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996..._19960023_en_1), but your ego prevents you from admitting your mistake, hence the tirade against others and how they lack conviction in their beliefs.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by bam

You keep banging this drum, insisting that Sharia courts are now "official" and their decrees suddenly enforceable.
The article provides no support for its claim of officialdom or a timeframe of when "previously" is in the line "Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced".

The fact remains that no tacit acceptance has been made by anyone regarding Sharia courts beyond those willing to submit themselves to their judgements.

I imagine you are by now fully aware of the situation (having availed yourself of the opsi website and their publication of the act online; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996..._19960023_en_1), but your ego prevents you from admitting your mistake, hence the tirade against others and how they lack conviction in their beliefs.

I haven't researched it myself and took the Times article as true on face value. I.e. use of the word official as non-metaphorical and 'enforcable' to mean exactly that. I am not about to check the source of the information as to do so would take hours - since you seem to think that we need to pay specific attention to the legislation, perhaps you'd also like to explain the relevance given that it has already been made clear that the issue is not a change in the law.

[bam]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

I haven't researched it myself and took the Times article as true on face value. I.e. use of the word official as non-metaphorical and 'enforcable' to mean exactly that. I am not about to check the source of the information as to do so would take hours - since you seem to think that we need to pay specific attention to the legislation, perhaps you'd also like to explain the relevance given that it has already been made clear that the issue is not a change in the law.

To be brief it is because of that legislation that the Sharia courts are allowed to be run and that their rulings are enforceable. It also explains their limits and why they do not and cannot supersede British law, eg; a ruling that runs contrary to a point of British law would be grounds to appeal to a normal court. There has been nothing done to make these courts mentioned in the article "official". You could just as easily start your court, say it enforced Sharia law, and as long as you followed the requirements of the legislation you would be just as official, your judgements just as enforceable.

Basically it is the legislation that allows this, there has been no special concession to Muslims at all.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by bam

To be brief it is because of that legislation that the Sharia courts are allowed to be run and that their rulings are enforceable. It also explains their limits and why they do not and cannot supersede British law, eg; a ruling that runs contrary to a point of British law would be grounds to appeal to a normal court. There has been nothing done to make these courts mentioned in the article "official". You could just as easily start your court, say it enforced Sharia law, and as long as you followed the requirements of the legislation you would be just as official, your judgements just as enforceable.

Basically it is the legislation that allows this, there has been no special concession to Muslims at all.

1) If you're refuting the article, you're going to have to find more details that have already been provided - merely stating claims that contradict the article is of no use unless you can provide a source

2) The question of whether the legislation has existed for a minute, a year or a thousand years isn't something anyone has expressed an issue with

3) The strawmen inferring that anyone has suggested that sharia can supercede British law or that anyone has suggested that there is a 'special concession' to Muslim do nothing to bring the argument forward

Originally Posted by Coventry Telegraph

Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of Hijaz College, has sat in judgment at a number of the tribunals.

He said it was not the same as unofficial sharia courts reported to be in operation across the country.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...2746-21708478/

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.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2...sharia-courts/

These two seem to confirm what I have said.

[Mark]

If you're going to persist in stating that something has changed, yet both refute everyone who comes up with evidence that things haven't changed and also seemingly suggest that you're unwilling to do further research, then perhaps it's time for you to help justify your side of the argument.

Precisely what are you claiming has changed to 'allow' this blot on your belief system to happen? Can you cite some reliable source for this other than that one Times article?

Edit - crossed in the mail. Seems you may have just done this.

Edit2 - those two cited articles appear to be re-hashed versions of the original Times article. They don't appear to add anything we didn't already know to this debate. Pray continue.

[bam]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

1) If you're refuting the article, you're going to have to find more details that have already been provided - merely stating claims that contradict the article is of no use unless you can provide a source

2) The question of whether the legislation has existed for a minute, a year or a thousand years isn't something anyone has expressed an issue with

3) The strawmen inferring that anyone has suggested that sharia can supercede British law or that anyone has suggested that there is a 'special concession' to Muslim do nothing to bring the argument forward



http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/new...2746-21708478/



http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2...sharia-courts/

These two seem to confirm what I have said.

How am I expected to prove that these courts are not "official" in terms of special consideration or recognition? If you read the legislation you will understand how these courts are able to operate, and how these courts claim their officialdom.
There were previously Sharia courts, they could only make advisory rulings against Muslims who went to them. Why? Because despite the existence of the Arbitration Act they did not comply with it. The new courts comply and thus are de facto recognised as "official".

Regarding your two articles, read the first in light of what I've said above and you'll understand it in context. The second is just the Times article being reprinted.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by bam

There were previously Sharia courts, they could only make advisory rulings against Muslims who went to them. Why? Because despite the existence of the Arbitration Act they did not comply with it. The new courts comply and thus are de facto recognised as "official".

Source?

I think I see what you were getting at earlier, although I think you're still operating on guesswork.

[Mark]

Source? 4th paragraph of the Times article you originally pointed at, spiced with a little common sense.

[dirtydog]

Missing the SPS yet, CBS?

[bam]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Source?

I think I see what you were getting at earlier, although I think you're still operating on guesswork.

Source for what particularly? I can't find a source to say that there hasn't been a change in the law (proving the negative), the articles quoted give no reference to such a change, and unless you can find such references the only thing we can know is that the Arbitration Act 1996 allows these "courts".

Tbh it is a little shocking to me that it has taken Muslim groups 12 years to realise they were able to do this, and I would agree with you if you are concerned that they may attempt to make rulings that would run contrary to British law, given inherent inequalities in Sharia as I understand it.
However they are only making use of the law that allows all binding arbitration, and the only way to remove these "courts" would be to rescind the Arbitration Act, or modify it to somehow make Sharia based rulings unenforceable (good luck with that).

The issue of community pressure to resolve situations in a particular way is not unique to Muslims, and I am doubtful that removing the "authority" of these "courts" would have any impact in that area.