Sharia courts operating in Britain

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

If they can't live with their religion in their native countries then they shouldn't take it with them when they move to a place that has more freedoms. Sharia is a lot of what they are running away from.

We have tribal justice as well as 'western' justice. It only applies to aboriginals living in aboriginal tribal situations. The courts recognise it. It's not like you get any justice anyway, when there is no right or wrong, the justice system is mad.

Why does this not surprise me?

I live in Bradford and was not aware of this. Though Bradford has many Muslims there are also a lot of National Front and BNP activists. It does not make a great deal of sense to operate two (sometimes opposing) sets of laws. Though it is easier to say it than instigate such a move, it seems more reasonable to somehow integrate the legal aspects so that the communities are not so severely divided. Whilst racists might say "I am not adhering to any Islamic law" they fail to notice that they are already subjected to draconian Christian laws, whilst not being terribly religious themselves. The local tabloids (namely the Telegraph and Argus) tend to sensationalise any form of crime that has been committed for religious reasons other than Christian ones, especially "honour" killings.

I hope it helps to reduce religious tension the city but I am not sure it will. How is it an 'inclusive' move to force different sections of the community to obey different laws?

There's nothing wrong with the system. Malaysia, a Muslim majority nation, has Sharia courts as well as civil courts. If Muslims can accept secular laws for non-Muslims, then why can't the west respect Islamic law for Muslims?

The fact is some muslims don't respect western laws, if the don't like the laws in their adopted country they should stay the fcuk out. I think most muslims move to the west to escape sharia law, and they should be welcome here.

Funny how I can offend or be racist if I fly the Union Jack anywhere displayed for the public to see. If another nation was to do the same here, it doesn't count...

Not at all, they move for economic gains. My point is, if we can respect western laws, then why can't you respect our laws? We're not forcing it on you. You forced secularism on us, and still continue to do so. Contrary to popular belief, the only two countries properly enforcing Sharia are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic republic of Iran. The remaining countries are pseudo-secular in nature.

Also, I would like to point out that 11.6% of the Muslims in the UK are white, out of white 40% are British. Most of them are recent converts. They demand Sharia too. Why not let them have it?



Can't blame your own countrymen of associating the Union Jack as a symbol of the BNP.

I personally have always been a fan of the British Empire. Personally, I think independence was the worst for India. I wish the UK still ruled over India. My country, Hyderabad, would have not only continued to be a British protectorate, but also continue to remain the "pearl of Southern Asia."

Also, I would like to point out that Islamic influence in the UK has been there for 12 centuries. An early example would be the decision of Offa, the eighth-century King of Mercia (one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms existing at that time), to have coins minted with an Islamic inscription on them - copies of coins issued by the near-contemporary Muslim ruler Al-Mansur. They were used in trade with the Ummayad Caliphate, which ruled over Spain at that time. The British people have always been much more tolerant than other Europeans, when it comes to Islam. That's why Arab Muslims joined the British to fight the Ottoman Caliph during WWI. Imagine that, Muslims going against their own representative of their faith for a Christian Empire! Until this recent Iraq war, Muslims had nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for the UK.

It's called New World Order leKiwi.. we know this.. slowly the cultures of the world will combine..

And combining all of their worst ideas does what and for whom?

Why be pessimistic? Westerners view Sharia as a barbaric practice, while Muslims view secular law as uneffective in curbing violent crime.

The Sharia law established in those courts in the UK relate to civil issues, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

it will accomplish a one world government, where most of the world will live as slaves.

I have copied this from the 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: This is how Sharia law is practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the courts in Britain you are equal before the law regardless of race, religion, gender, ancestry, ect. The Sharia legal system is inherently discriminatory and simply does not meet the standard of Western law in equality.


Trial Procedures

The Criminal Procedure Law provides persons under investigation the right to a lawyer and permits lawyers to present arguments in criminal courts. The law also provides that convicted persons be informed of their right to appeal rulings. An attorney is not provided at public expense. Defendants have the right to confront or question witnesses against them; however witnesses are questioned before the initiation of a trial and not during the trial. Defendants have access to government-held evidence relevant to their cases. The majority of trials are closed to the public but the accused may request to have a public trial.

In a Shari'a court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women. Under the Hanbali interpretation of Shari'a, judges may discount the testimony of persons who are nonpracticing Muslims or who do not adhere to Hanbali doctrine. Legal sources reported that testimony by Shi'a was often ignored in courts of law or was deemed to have less weight than testimony by Sunnis.

Female parties in court proceedings such as divorce and family law cases generally had to deputize male relatives to speak on their behalf. In the absence of two witnesses, or four witnesses in the case of adultery, confessions before a judge were almost always required for criminal conviction‑‑a situation that has led prosecuting authorities to coerce confessions from suspects by threats and abuse.

Laws and regulations state that defendants should be treated equally; however, sentencing was not uniform and crimes committed against Muslims received harsher penalties than those against non‑Muslims. In wrongful death cases, the amount of indemnity or "blood money" awarded to relatives varied with the nationality, religion, age, and sex of the victim. A sentence may be changed at any stage of review, except for punishments stipulated by the Koran.

Shari'a considers Hindus to be polytheists and on this basis justifies discrimination in calculating accidental death or injury compensation. According to the country's Hanbali interpretation of Shari'a, once a court determines fault, a Muslim male receives 100 percent of the amount of compensation determined, a Jew or Christian male receives 50 percent, and all others receive one‑sixteenth of the amount a Muslim male receives. Women receive 50 percent of what men receive in each of these categories.

Provincial governors, and members of the royal family, have authority to reduce a sentence. In cases between two individuals, the wronged party has the right to accept money or impose no punishment instead of the punishment decreed by the judge. Senior members of the royal family were not subject to the same rule of law as ordinary citizens.

The king and his advisors review cases involving capital punishment. The king has the authority to commute death sentences and grant pardons, except for capital crimes committed against individuals. In such cases, he may request the victim's next of kin pardon the killer‑‑usually in return for compensation from the family of the convicted person or from the king.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100605.htm

I hope this never reaches the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Human_rights

I understand your bias against Sharia, I would have been biased as well if I had been raised in your society. Rest assured, a thorough research on Sharia will probably make you understand our point of view.

This is the extent of distribution of the 4 schools of thought of Sunni Islam:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... tion3b.JPG

As you can see, the Hanbali doctribe is limited only to the Arabian peninsula. Iran is Twelver Shi'a, while Yemen is Zaidi Shi'a. Lebanon is also Twelver, and most other Shi'as are Ismaili. The Shi'as in Turkey are Alevi. Oman is Ibadi, which is neither Sunni, nor Shi'a.

Islam has never prescribed discrimination against non-Muslims, apart from imposing the jizya tax, as non-Muslims aren't allowed to join the military. It's the corrupt Imams of the schools of thought who corrupted Sharia. Please don't assume that the Sharia practised by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is what is prescribed by the prophet! The Sharia in Saudi Arabia is approximately a century old, it's a completely new innovation, based on Wahaabism/Salaafism, an ultra-orthodox form of Islam that is rejected by over 95% of Muslims, including Saudis themselves.

A study of Iran's Sharia system is much closer to proper Sharia. No country practices true Sharia.

Please also read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Decl ... s_in_Islam

Also, there's an interesting book on Human rights in Islam: http://books.google.com/books?as_isbn=0950395498