Britain's Sharia Courts: Your opinion

[Zenos]

So I recently found out from a friend of mine from the UK that muslims have several Sharia Courts,and I did some online research and have found that there are at least 85 Islamic Sharia Law courts operating in Britain. Sharia courts, which operate in mosques and houses across Britain, routinely issue rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic Sharia law that are at odds with British law. Although Sharia rulings are not legally binding, those subject to the rulings often feel obliged to obey them as a matter of religious belief, or because of pressure from family and community members to do so.

I also found out that Leyton is a a heavily Islamized area in east London.
(that being said if it's as bad as some areas of cities in france I have been to ggood luck going through that part of your own city if your not muslim)

So for those from Britian I want your opinion of the fact that such courts while having no legal power are in fact opperating in your nation !

[StoppingTime]

Well I'm not from the UK or Britain (which are different places) but I'll answer anyway. If there's nothing legally binding about these institutions, well, they're not really courts are they? What's the difference if they exist or not?

[Zenos]

Well I'm not from the UK or Britain (which are different places) but I'll answer anyway. If there's nothing legally binding about these institutions, well, they're not really courts are they? What's the difference if they exist or not?

hmm well shouldn't there ya know ne like a law in place that out right bans such things?

[Gamma Male]

What? You mean there are religious organizations with no legal authority giving commands to their members?!?
OH MY GOD!!! HOW COULD THAT BE?!?!?




Who cares? It's not just muslims. All religions have churches that give commands to their members. That doesn't mean they have to listen.

[Zenos]

What? You mean there are religious organizations with no legal authority giving commands to their members?!?
OH MY GOD!!! HOW COULD THAT BE?!?!?




Who cares? It's not just muslims. All religions have churches that give commands to their members. That doesn't mean they have to listen.

Not those kinda command such as not to murder,but commands like if theres a divorce the mother has toi give the child to the father no matter oif shes the better parent,and such.

Stuff that a civil court should determine,not a trumped up kangaroo court should have the right to decide on/

[Gamma Male]

Not those kinda command such as not to murder,but commands like if theres a divorce the mother has toi give the child to the father no matter oif shes the better parent,and such.

Stuff that a civil court should determine,not a trumped up kangaroo court should have the right to decide on/

Yeah, I know what kind of commands you meant. My point was that,
1: They're not real courts, since they have no legal authority. That mother doesn't have to listen to the church/tribe of elders/temple. If she chooses to listen to the "court" and give her child to the father, it's her decision. I agree that it's unfortunate people are so willing to blndly obey the commands of religious officals. But that's their choice.
2: This isn't just a Muslim thing. Catholic officials tell their followers what to do with their lives all the time.

[StoppingTime]

hmm well shouldn't there ya know ne like a law in place that out right bans such things?

...No? I think I made that clear above. But seeing as you seem to be targeting the Muslim population I don't even know why I'm replying because you'll just say whatever you can to nullify their traditions when in reality you really don't know too much about it beyond a few Google searches.

[Zenos]

...No? I think I made that clear above. But seeing as you seem to be targeting the Muslim population I don't even know why I'm replying because you'll just say whatever you can to nullify their traditions when in reality you really don't know too much about it beyond a few Google searches.

and there you go just assuming what I know are don't know,and I am not targeting anyone. I was just discussing something a friend of mine told me about!

Yeah, I know what kind of commands you meant. My point was that,
1: They're not real courts, since they have no legal authority. That mother doesn't have to listen to the church/tribe of elders/temple. If she chooses to listen to the "court" and give her child to the father, it's her decision. I agree that it's unfortunate people are so willing to blndly obey the commands of religious officals. But that's their choice.
2: This isn't just a Muslim thing. Catholic officials tell their followers what to do with their lives all the time.



I know about the Catholic officials tell their followers what to do with their lives all the time,and as long as it does not interfere with or run counter to an established legal system that's one thing.

[StoppingTime]

and there you go just assuming what I know are don't know,and I am not targeting anyone. I was just discussing something a friend of mine told me about!

Your OP mentioned "online research." As you didn't mention anything else, I have no reason to believe there is any other research.

Anyway, seeing as you said "ban such things" and there are, in fact (as another poster mentioned) other institutions that do this, why aren't you considering banning those? The Church is involved with people's lives too...some would argue more than it should be.

[Zenos]

Your OP mentioned "online research." As you didn't mention anything else, I have no reason to believe there is any other research.

Anyway, seeing as you said "ban such things" and there are, in fact (as another poster mentioned) other institutions that do this, why aren't you considering banning those? The Church is involved with people's lives too...some would argue more than it should be.


I'm not saying ban any religion at all you misunderstand me.

I'm saying regardless of religion ban any jumped up kangaroo court type thing that tries to interfere in what is clearly a civil law case like for example divorce.

banning these jumped up kangaroo court type things doe snot mean ban a religion

[Gamma Male]

I'm not saying ban any religion at all you misunderstand me.

I'm saying regardless of religion ban any jumped up kangaroo court type thing that tries to interfere in what is clearly a civil law case like for example divorce.

banning these jumped up kangaroo court type things doe snot mean ban a religion

But aren't all churches and temples basically just big "jumped up kangaroo courts"? Isn't the point of most organized religions to tell their members how they should live their lives?
What you're proposing is a ban on churches giving advice.

[Zenos]

But aren't all churches and temples basically just big "jumped up kangaroo courts"? Isn't the point of most organized religions to tell their members how they should live their lives?
What you're proposing is a ban on churches giving advice.


No what i'm propsing is this give all the advice you want to if it'll help in a marriage or any other situation but don't tell a woman that if shes getting a divorce she has to give the man the child,let a civil court decide who is the better parent and let then rule on that.

Well not all churches and temples are big "jumped up kangaroo courts",now mind you I have seen some churches where the leadership controlled the congregation good examples of this was taking the members money even if it was retirement checks,widows benefits and such and redistributing it as the leadership felt it should be among the members of the church.

Now that is an example of what I was talking about

[Gamma Male]

No what i'm propsing is this give all the advice you want to if it'll help in a marriage or any other situation but don't tell a woman that if shes getting a divorce she has to give the man the child,let a civil court decide who is the better parent and let then rule on that.

Well not all churches and temples are big "jumped up kangaroo courts",now mind you I have seen some churches where the leadership controlled the congregation good examples of this was taking the members money even if it was retirement checks,widows benefits and such and redistributing it as the leadership felt it should be among the members of the church.

Now that is an example of what I was talking about
But at the end of the day it is up to the mother, not the church, to decide what she wants to do with her child. The church can tell her what to do all they want, but she doesn't have to listen. Nobody's forcing her to obey the church. And telling the church that that they can't give commands to their members, ridiculous as those commands may be, would be a violation of their right to free speech.

[Zenos]

But at the end of the day it is up to the mother, not the church, to decide what she wants to do with her child. The church can tell her what to do all they want, but she doesn't have to listen. Nobody's forcing her to obey the church. And telling the church that that they can't give commands to their members, ridiculous as those commands may be, would be a violation of their right to free speech.



the think is with those Sharia Courts is that family and even neighbors are getting involved forcing the decisions of these kangaroo courts on to people that are muslim even if they don't want it.

theres a fine line between giving moral and spiritual support and advice and butting into the area of civil law.


heck you do know that under Sharia law that if I a pagan married a muslim woman and she had my kids she could leave and take them from me even if I was the better parent due to me not being a muslim.

[Harry Smith]

Please-as someone living in Britain this is utter right wing crap.

The initial claim was made by the Daily Mail in 2009-it said that there were apparently 85. I'd be extremely skeptical of this considering the news paper has vocal history of not only being strongly against Islam but also being anti-women, anti-gay, anti-NHS and even pro Nazis in the 1930's. Don't trust the Daily Mail.

In regards to the courts-The OP seems very confused, and to be frank you don't seem to understand how the legal system.

I could open up say the 'Grand Court of Virtual Teen'. I could sit here on my computer and sentence every member to death.

Just because I say that and write it down doesn't mean that it has any legal authority in any court. The police would not enforce it, the courts wouldn't enforce it and the government wouldn't enforce it.

So if a Sharia law court said a couple are divorced under the ideas of both the local mosque and the British Government there is no divorce-just because someone says a couple are divorced doesn't mean they are. These courts have no legal authority on civil matters either.

There's also very little to do-we can't arrest people for going to their local mosque can we?

And yes Leyton has a lot of Muslims-so what? Why does that matter? Not every Muslim is an extremist you know

[AlexOnToast]

e apparently 85. I'd be extremely skeptical of this considering the news paper has vocal history of not only being strongly against Islam but also being anti-women, anti-gay, anti-NHS and even pro Nazis in the 1930's. Don't trust the Daily Mail.

"The Daily Mail: read some bullshit about a shark then have a crafty wank over page 3"

Yes, It's all bullshit.

[Vlerchan]

The Irish had a situation similar to this starting during the War of Independence with the British and finishing when the Irish Free State established the Courts of Justice Act 1924: individuals could approach an independent-of-the-(British)-state mediator (usually someone respected in the Parish; school teacher; priest; solicitor; etc.) and have them settle their disputes. It was all voluntary.

And I think this is what the OP doesn't seem to understand: Muslims are voluntarily attending these courts; nobody is forcing them to go. If he understands this then I can only wonder why he holds a problem with individuals settling their disputes privately - is that really so bad?