Sharia courts are operating in Britain. Their decisions will be enforced by British courts.

However, BOTH parties to a dispute must agree to allow their case to be decided by a sharia court.

See:

REVEALED: UK’S FIRST OFFICIAL SHARIA COURTS

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

My personal view is this. Provided both parties FREELY give their consent to having their cases tried before a sharia court there is no harm in this. It may even do some good.

It is in any case no different to the parties agreeing to appoint an arbitrator to settle their dispute.

My concern is that, especially in marital cases, the woman may come under severe pressure. She may not be in a position to refuse. This is especially so where domestic violence is concerned.

Quote:

"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."

Questions:

Could this happen in Australia?

Will we soon have Catholic courts?

Dear Steven,

Interesting thread.

I had no idea that it was happening in the
UK. I had assumed that Sharia Law was not allowed.
You live and learn.

As for it happening in Australia?

My concern would also be women's rights under Sharia
Law.

I think it would be something that would have to
be looked at very, very carefully.

Difficult one Steven.

Shouldn't the law be the same to everyone, regardless
of religion, in this country? Or am I being naive?

Bear in mind Foxy that this only applies if BOTH parties consent. If either party objects the case must go through the usual civil process.

The difficulty I foresee is that in some cases, especially those involving domestic violence, it may not be possible to ascertain whether both parties are TRULY giving their consent voluntarily.

The other problem is that if you allow Muslims to have their own courts, why not Catholics, Hindus, etc?

In Britain a Jewish court already operates. However my understanding is that it is used mainly as a quick and inexpensive way of settling commercial disputes. Again, both parties to the dispute have to consent.

Will we soon have Catholic courts?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 16 September
We have them already, and thats all we have.
Are we all blind and not spent any time in the Australian courts (tribunals) ?

One only has to realise how many Catholics there are in the legal profession and who are the Catholics sitting at the bench to realise that the British based common law system we received from England over one hundred years ago has long gone and been taken over by the Cannon Law admisistrative process without any body knowing what has happened.

What I dont consent to is the fact that when you make a comlaint and take it to what you beleive is an independant court or tribunal, you end up in front of another Catholic looking after his brother from the same church and then ordered to pay the Catholic offender for the exercise.

Then you attempt to appeal the decision in the next level up and go before another Catholic and you get exactly the same result.

Then to the so called High Court in which you have to accept the Catholic poof adjuciating on the matter with the same predicted results.

Have a good look at who are the principals in most of our state schools and the senior public servats, are you all blind.

Steven,
From the link you provided. The below also has some interesting implications:
“ 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”

I wonder who decides what law applies in cases of inheritance, the giver or the receivers. There is in inheritance & other areas of sharia grades based on sex.
If we allow the bequeather to decide it seems we would be entrenching traditional inequalities.And how does this sync with our (core) antidiscrimination laws/values?

*quickly disguises his nick*....ok.. we may now begin.

Steven said:

"My concern is that, especially in marital cases, the woman may come under severe pressure. She may not be in a position to refuse. This is especially so where domestic violence is concerned."

*bingo*

Then... Foxy says:

"I had no idea that it was happening in the
UK. I had assumed that Sharia Law was not allowed.
You live and learn."

well well well :) *the laaaayyyt has shined*

One problem with the issue of "Sharia Courts+Domestic violence"
is that Sharia law is based on the Quran and that document specifically permits a husband to 'beat' his wife as a last resort in cases of him suspecting her of bad behavior. Surah 4:34 for those interested.

For a detailed explaination of the 'process' and limits you may view it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJkmRBEOC3o "Men have authority over women"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wseFgBocQrw&feature=related (beatings are indispensible)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58&feature=related "The rules"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouztv-tRPKM&feature=related (womans perspective)

Western law forbids domestic violence. Islamic law does not, in fact it goes further than 'permitting' it actually recommends it (as a last resort)

To my mind....the people who most want 'Sharia' law in western countries would be Muslim males. His share of the property division is much BIGger than hers.

Now.. that last paragraph is the only part of this post which is my 'opinion'.. I wonder if anyone noticed that?