Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK's top judge

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,745
42
91
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...in-says-UKs-judge.html
The most senior judge in England tonight gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: 'It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.'

In his speech in an East London mosque Lord Phillips signalled approval of sharia principles as a means of settling disputes so long as no punishments that conflict with the established law are involved, and as long as divorces are made to comply with the civil law.

But his remarks - which give the green light from the highest judicial office to the informal sharia courts already operated by numerous mosques - provoked a storm of criticism.

Lawyers warned that family and marital disputes settled by sharia could leave women or vulnerable people at a serious disadvantage.

Tories said that equality under the law must be respected and warned that outcomes incompatible with English law should never be enforceable.

Lord Phillips spoke five months after Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams surrounded himself in controversy with a lecture in which he suggested Islamic law could have official status and that it could govern marital law, financial transactions and arbitration in disputes.

The Lord Chief Justice said today of the Archbishop's views: 'It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes.'

He added that there was 'widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of sharia law'.

Lord Phillips said: 'Those who in this country are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator.

'There is no reason why principles of sharia law or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.'

Lord Phillips said that any sanctions must be 'drawn from the laws of England and Wales'. Severe physical punishment - he mentioned stoning, flogging or the cutting off of hands - was 'out of the question' in Britain, he said.

'So far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognise aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country,' he said.

sharia law

The Sharia Council of Britain: (from right to left) Dr Suhaib Hasan, Maulana Abu Sayeed and Mr Mufti Barabatullah preside over marriage cases at their headquarters earlier this year

The signal of approval for voluntary sharia tribunals brought protests from lawyers who fear that in some Islamic communities women do not have a full and equal say and that they could be disadvantaged in supposedly voluntary sharia arrangements.

Barrister and human rights specialist John Cooper said: 'There should be one law by which everyone is held to account.

'I have considerable concerns that well-crafted and carefully designed laws in this country, drawn up to protect both parties including the weak and vulnerable party in matrimonial break-ups could be compromised.

'I have concerns over a system of law that may cause one party to be disadvantaged.'

Resolution, the organisation of family law solicitors, said people should govern their lives in accordance with religious principles 'provided that those beliefs and traditions do not contradict the fundamental principle of equality on which this country?s laws are based.'

Spokesman Teresa Richardson said religious law 'must be used to find solutions which are consistent with the basic principles of family law in this country and people must always have redress to the civil courts where they so choose.'

Robert Whelan of the Civitas think tank said: 'Everybody is governed by English law and it is not possible to sign away your legal rights.
Rowan Williams

Under fire: The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. His comments on Sharia sparked a political storm

'That is why guarantees on consumer products always have to tell customers their statutory rights are not affected.

'There is not much doubt that in traditional Islamic communities women do not enjoy the freedoms that women in this country have had for 100 years or more.

'It is very easy to put pressure on young women in a male-dominated household.

'The English law stands to protect people from intimidation in such circumstances.'

Tories warned that principles of equality under the law must be respected.

Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve said: 'The Lord Chief Justice correctly points out that there is a tradition in this country of allowing mediation to take place subject to other legal principles as long as it is voluntary and not subject to coercion, and with outcomes which are not fundamentally incompatible with our own legal principles.

'Any that are incompatible cannot and should never be enforceable.

'One of the key aspects of our free society in Britain is equality under our own laws. It is important that this should be understood and respected by all in our country.'

A spokesman for Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice said: 'English law, which is based on our shared values of equality and a respect for the rule of law, takes precedence over any other legal system.

'The Government has no intention of changing this position. Alongside this it is possible for other dispute resolution systems on matters of civil law to be accommodated, so long as they are not in conflict with the laws of England and Wales and are abided by on a voluntary basis.'

BRIEFING: SHARIA LAW

* Sharia law is based on the Koran, on associated teaching about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, and on the judgements of Islamic clerics and lawyers down the centuries.
* It is in essence a set of religious principles by which Muslims are required to live. Sharia is interpreted and enforced differently in different countries across the Islamic world.
* Islamic law is often regarded as having four parts: how Muslims should worship; commerce; crime and punishment; and marriage and divorce.
* Sharia says forbidden behaviour, like drinking alcohol and taking drugs, or adultery, should be punished. Islamic scholars say the Koran sets down punishments such as lashes or stoning for adultery.
* Sharia law also permits behaviour not allowed by English law, for examply polygamy, which in some jurisdictions says men may have up to four wives.
* In Britain, sharia courts are often operated by mosques. Muslim families come to sharia courts for justice and agree to be bound by their rulings.
* They have no formal legal status.
* There are around 1.6 million British Muslims, most of whom are of Pakistani origin. The strongest Muslim communities are in London, especially in the East London borough of Tower Hamlets where Lord Phillips spoke yesterday, Birmingham, Yorkshire and Lancashire.
* Orthodox Jews operate Beth Din courts which are subordinate to the civil law and which decide issues among 180,000 people according to ancient Jewish law. They are regulated by the Chief Rabbi. A divorcing Jewish couple first divorce in the civil courts, then come to the Beth Din tribunals for religious judgement.
* The only religious courts in England with full and official legal status are the consistory courts and tribunals which decide disputes and disciplinary matters in the Church of England.

I'm sure this will cause an uproar, what do you Brits think about this?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
All I know is that I'm glad we have separation of church and state and "Freedom from Religion" as well as "Freedom of Religion".

Could you imagine having to live under the rules of that Medieval Religion?
 

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,745
42
91
I shiver at the thought. Americans whine and cry about Christianity here, but just imagine if Islam ran things here. They would really have something to grip about then.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
I think this is harmless, a good idea, and that some will misrepresent it and hype it.

It looks like it takes the parties mutually agreeing to enter a contract to do this.

What's the difference between this and any other set of terms the parties might agree to, like in a pre-nup?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Sawyer
I shiver at the thought. Americans whine and cry about Christianity here, but just imagine if Islam ran things here. They would really have something to grip about then.
Well they complain because Christianity is just an evolved version of Islam. Not as brutal but just as ridiculous.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: Sawyer
I shiver at the thought. Americans whine and cry about Christianity here, but just imagine if Islam ran things here. They would really have something to grip about then.

I see someone was fulfilling my predictions and posted before I did. *It's not going to run things*, it's going to be available for specific people to choose if they want to.

It's about resolving civil matter, not as if they can say they're immune from criminal law for something.

As to your other point, the American laws already have plenty or religious influence because of voters. Check the discriminatory anti-gay marriage votes lately?
 

SAWYER

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
16,745
42
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Sawyer
I shiver at the thought. Americans whine and cry about Christianity here, but just imagine if Islam ran things here. They would really have something to grip about then.

I see someone was fulfilling my predictions and posted before I did. *It's not going to run things*, it's going to be available for specific people to choose if they want to.

It's about resolving civil matter, not as if they can say they're immune from criminal law for something.

As to your other point, the American laws already have plenty or religious influence because of voters. Check the discriminatory anti-gay marriage votes lately?

I'm not talking about the Sahria law, I'm talking if Islam was the main force in America like Christianity is here. Human rights...lol gay rights.....LOLOL
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think this is harmless, a good idea, and that some will misrepresent it and hype it.

It looks like it takes the parties mutually agreeing to enter a contract to do this.

What's the difference between this and any other set of terms the parties might agree to, like in a pre-nup?

ARe you telling me you can't see where this is headed? Are you that blind?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Craig234
I think this is harmless, a good idea, and that some will misrepresent it and hype it.

So the UK will effectively have (at least) 2 different classes of people, under two seperate legal systems? And yes, I understand this isn't about criminal law. But civil is that which affects most of us far more.

IMO, bad idea on too many levels to enumerate here.

Fern
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
When can we expect support for FSM based laws? I don't know what crazy rules the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion has created yet, but I bet they'll be more fun than Sharia.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.

That is fine in theory until the losing side(if there was an issue) decides that they don't want it "judged" under sharia law. Then what? It'll end up in "normal" court to rule on the "sharia" agreement and on down the line.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.

Except that contracts can't override the law of the land. You and I can't enter a contract stating that if you fail to meet your obligation, I own your wife.

So if a contract can't override the law, what does it matter whether it's Sharia or not? Ultimately the law of the land has to prevail. The Brits seem intent on giving their society away however.
 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,730
2
81
Sounds like a sign that marks the beginning of the end of Europe and the emergence of Eurabia.

That old saying "give someone an inch and they will take a mile" well forget the inch Europe is handing over miles. They give them this and it will be a huge step to the total Islamification of Europe.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.

That is fine in theory until the losing side(if there was an issue) decides that they don't want it "judged" under sharia law. Then what? It'll end up in "normal" court to rule on the "sharia" agreement and on down the line.

That's no different than any time someone signs a contract and then doesn't like what they signed later. Not an issue about this topic, nothing to do with Sharia law.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: Socio
Sounds like a sign that marks the beginning of the end of Europe and the emergence of Eurabia.

That old saying "give someone an inch and they will take a mile" well forget the inch Europe is handing over miles. They give them this and it will be a huge step to the total Islamification of Europe.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.

Except that contracts can't override the law of the land. You and I can't enter a contract stating that if you fail to meet your obligation, I own your wife.

So if a contract can't override the law, what does it matter whether it's Sharia or not? Ultimately the law of the land has to prevail. The Brits seem intent on giving their society away however.

You did so well until the last sentence.

A contract might say "Bob will pay John $10 for his widget." Fine, dispute? Go to court.

A contract might say "Bob will pay John $10 for his widget, disputes will use a mediator." Fine, disputes use the mediator, and if it gets to court, he enforces that.

Same situation, it might say "disputes will be settled by the flip of a coin" or "our mutual friend Bill" or "the local priest". All just fine.

All this does is let two people who are of the Muslim faith and who want to use Sharia law, use it for their private, consenual contracts and marriage disputes.

The only objection I see to this is based on the bigotry that Muslims are wrong to do anything at all in their faith, they're just wrong for being of that religion at all.

If that's what you're saying, say it, but otherwise, this is simply them practising their religion in a harmless manner that there's no reason I see to get concerned about.

There's a reason you don't see any harm to this, but rather just the 'Muslim hordes are conquering the world' crowd complaining.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.

That is fine in theory until the losing side(if there was an issue) decides that they don't want it "judged" under sharia law. Then what? It'll end up in "normal" court to rule on the "sharia" agreement and on down the line.

That's no different than any time someone signs a contract and then doesn't like what they signed later. Not an issue about this topic, nothing to do with Sharia law.

Except it is different. If the outcome is something that would normally be outside the "normal" civil courts it could be ruled as non-enforceable contract- no?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,459
7,514
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Socio
Sounds like a sign that marks the beginning of the end of Europe and the emergence of Eurabia.

That old saying "give someone an inch and they will take a mile" well forget the inch Europe is handing over miles. They give them this and it will be a huge step to the total Islamification of Europe.

The old saying I'm thinking of is, "give someone who lacks critical thinking skills and knowledge of logic a keyboard, and you get a post with a slippery slope fallacy".

Given the demographics, Europeans will be fleeing religious persecution once more to come to American shores. That is if you?re not too busy parading around the idea.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: Socio
Sounds like a sign that marks the beginning of the end of Europe and the emergence of Eurabia.

That old saying "give someone an inch and they will take a mile" well forget the inch Europe is handing over miles. They give them this and it will be a huge step to the total Islamification of Europe.

I'll double down on your alarmism and claim this will result in the milkyway realigning into the a muslim crescent.

In the U.S., choice of law provisions are generally enforceable unless there is an overriding public policy disfavoring a specific application. As long as the same type of procedure is followed in the U.K., i just don't see a problem.

Again, two non-muslims can agree to use sharia law to resolve a dispute. The problem CAD brought up in terms of a party later deciding the choice of law provision was a dumb idea has been addressed in numerous U.S. cases. Basically, too bad.

I would say allow people to agree to a sharia type mediation AFTER a dispute has arisen. I'm not a fan of choice of law and forum selection provisions in general. I'm sure everybody here was forced to sign a contract with some large national company that stated there would be binding mandatory arbitration if any dispute arose and that this arbitration would have to take place in chicago and under some random arbitration guidelines.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
I think all the smart people from Europe came over here when America was first starting to grow as a nation. The idiot genes stayed back in Europe
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
349
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I dont know if this is necessarily such a dumb idea. it's much like a forum selection clause. I mean, Red Dawn and Fern could enter into a contract for the manufacturing of widgets and include in the contract a provision that in case of any legal dispute arising from the contract that the matter will be decided under sharia law.

That is fine in theory until the losing side(if there was an issue) decides that they don't want it "judged" under sharia law. Then what? It'll end up in "normal" court to rule on the "sharia" agreement and on down the line.

That's no different than any time someone signs a contract and then doesn't like what they signed later. Not an issue about this topic, nothing to do with Sharia law.

Except it is different. If the outcome is something that would normally be outside the "normal" civil courts it could be ruled as non-enforceable contract- no?

I don't see the problem you're suggesting; can you try a specific hypothetical?