Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ulver wrote:
You chose to delete the rest of my quoted post, stating that out of 6 domestic violence cases, all had been ruled in favour of the women. MGS has handily provided the quote, his post quoted below.

............. ...........

As per my response to BoS' post above, 100% of those domestic violence cases were ruled in favour of the women. Of course we have no knowledge of the cases in point, however are we to assume that the women's testimonies were at least twice as strong as the men's, making them at least equal or greater in worth? It certainly doesn't support the claim that Sharia courts are prejudiced against women.

With regards to custody of children, no that doesn't sound fair. However, Fathers 4 Justice claim that English courts bias towards the mothers when awarding custody (and I can believe that - I know (secondhand) of one case where the mother is positively unsuitable to have custody of the children) - does that sound fair? It certainly doesn't count as equality.

No where in that article does it say the court ruled in favour of the women. What it said was that the only punishment brought against the men for inflicting physical abuse was to be told to attend an anger management class and that the courts had kept the marriage together because of that.

What I read from that is that the court paid lip service to the notion of punishing the men for their crime and then insisted the woman return to the marital home and continue in the relationship.

6 women sought justice, they were all denied.

The statement of a woman's testimony being worth half that of a man's is established in sharia, don't suggest either that these women 'won' after being told to return to their abusive husbands and continue in a marriage that has so far resulted in physical harm or that because you think they might have won that they were subject to preferential treatment.

With regard the courts in the UK, at the very least there is an attempt at and a supposed striving towards equality in justice and principally above ALL other considerations, the courts of the United Kingdom are supposed to put the welfare of the child as it's Principal Concern in deciding an outcome.

You appear to have totally misread that article.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:6 women sought justice, they were all denied.

The statement of a woman's testimony being worth half that of a man's is established in sharia, don't suggest either that these women 'won' after being told to return to their abusive husbands and continue in a marriage that has so far resulted in physical harm or that because you think they might have won that they were subject to preferential treatment.

With regard the courts in the UK, at the very least there is an attempt at and a supposed striving towards equality in justice and principally above ALL other considerations, the courts of the United Kingdom are supposed to put the welfare of the child as it's Principal Concern in deciding an outcome.

You appear to have totally misread that article.

The women withdrew complaints that they had lodged with police - maybe they wanted to give their husbands a second chance, maybe the anger management courses worked, who knows? I don't. Do you?

There is no obligation for the women to withdraw those complaints; I'm sure you'll claim they were intimidated to do so, but they were strong-willed enough to lodge the complaints in the first place.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:...don't suggest either that these women 'won' after being told to return to their abusive husbands and continue in a marriage that has so far resulted in physical harm...

I can't understand why any woman would return to an abusive partner, but it happens all the time: "He'll change, I know it," "he's a good man really," "deep down he loves me," etc etc. I've seen it and heard it several times before. Women (and men for that matter) want to believe that the person they love will live up to the image they have of them, so don't suggest these women were manacled and dragged back to their prison homes, and don't assume it doesn't happen to Western women. As a female friend of mine once said, "women love a bastard." Sad, but true.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:With regard the courts in the UK, at the very least there is an attempt at and a supposed striving towards equality in justice and principally above ALL other considerations, the courts of the United Kingdom are supposed to put the welfare of the child as it's Principal Concern in deciding an outcome.

You appear to have totally misread that article.

You must realise how thin that sounds:
at the very least
attempt
supposed
striving
towards

It doesn't sound like you believe what you're typing yourself.

You have to realise that yours isn't the only world view - I have not 'misread' the article, I have merely interpreted it differently from you. Most things are open to interpretation (especially non-verbal remote communication, e.g. the Internet) - journalism being a major one.

Just to paraphrase what Albatross said, don't think for one second I'm standing up for Sharia, I pledge no support to any prejudiced organisation.

Ulver wrote:
The women withdrew complaints that they had lodged with police - maybe they wanted to give their husbands a second chance, maybe the anger management courses worked, who knows? I don't. Do you?
There is no obligation for the women to withdraw those complaints; I'm sure you'll claim they were intimidated to do so, but they were strong-willed enough to lodge the complaints in the first place.

Strong willed or desperate...
Then it's referred to the sharia court, the woman can refuse if she wants to and isn't overly bothered about the rejection of her community for not agreeing with God's law.
A woman subjected to abuse goes to the police and is returned to and subject to the adjudication of the very culture that supports her husband's actions.

It is disgusting.

Ulver wrote:
I can't understand why any woman would return to an abusive partner, but it happens all the time: "He'll change, I know it," "he's a good man really," "deep down he loves me," etc etc. I've seen it and heard it several times before. Women (and men for that matter) want to believe that the person they love will live up to the image they have of them, so don't suggest these women were manacled and dragged back to their prison homes, and don't assume it doesn't happen to Western women. As a female friend of mine once said, "women love a bastard." Sad, but true.

I have worked with women who have been abused within muslim homes, I have learnt of the pressures they face and the lack of support they experience. Your response here trivializing this to some squabble is crass, I've seen the scars inflicted on a woman's arms by the rubber hosing she was bound with before being thrown under the stairs for up to 12 hours to lie in her own filth by a muslim husband because she had been speaking to women at the market who'd told her about a college course and she'd asked his permission to take it. Whilst these abuses go on in other parts of the community, it is endorsed or quietly ignored in this community by it's leaders, religious or otherwise.

Many of these women may not know their full rights, may not know the english language well and may believe that, on escaping to report to the western police only to be taken before a sharia court and ordered to continue in the marriage, that all hope was lost and accept their defeat and life of misery.

Imagine you had finally plucked up the courage to go to the police and try to explain your situation, only to be turned over to your family, religious leaders and spouse again, all of whom are far more shamed and outraged at you going outside to seek help than they are about the actual beatings you're getting. These women were betrayed by the system and taken back into the life they valiantly sought to leave.

Ulver wrote:
You must realise how thin that sounds:
at the very least
attempt
supposed
striving
towards

It doesn't sound like you believe what you're typing yourself.

I was constructing the sentence to limit the amount of annoying counter pseudocomparison like your reference to english court bias. It was an effort to wean you off this sideline of apples for oranges.

Ulver wrote:
You have to realise that yours isn't the only world view - I have not 'misread' the article, I have merely interpreted it differently from you. Most things are open to interpretation (especially non-verbal remote communication, e.g. the Internet) - journalism being a major one.
Just to paraphrase what Albatross said, don't think for one second I'm standing up for Sharia, I pledge no support to any prejudiced organisation.

World view is irrelevant here. We are discussing the view of the United Kingdom vs the view of Sharia.

And I do think you're standing up for Sharia, you have just chosen to read an extremely positive outcome from an article that I drew a highly negative outcome from.

In all 6 cases, the men were told to go to anger management and the marriage was 'saved'. So the potentially violent husband and the abused wife were instructed to remain together and you came to the conclusion that in all 6 cases this was because it was what the women had been complaining to the police about all along?

Are you aware that the maintaining of the marriage is the principal concern of the Sharia court in ALL cases like this, regardless of individual circumstance, because it is listed as the principal concern in holy text? The degree of abuse is not relevant to the Sharia adjudicators, only that the marriage remain.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Your response here trivializing this to some squabble is crass,

Trivialising?! How dare you. You think I take domestic abuse lightly? I'm struggling to avoid something that will earn me a ban, so I'm going to leave you to it after this.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Ulver wrote:
You have to realise that yours isn't the only world view...

World view is irrelevant here. We are discussing the view of the United Kingdom vs the view of Sharia.

'World view' means 'your view of the world', it doesn't equate to 'Earth'. Misinterpretation.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And I do think you're standing up for Sharia, you have just chosen to read an extremely positive outcome from an article that I drew a highly negative outcome from.

I'm gay so no, I'm not standing up for Sharia.

Modqusition on:

In the words of the immortal bard: Everyone needs to mellow the hell out. Lets step back and take a breather before I close the thread and get happy with the BANstick. Thank you for your cooperation.

Deleted by Frazzled. one more chance to mellow out.

And we all know what MGS really meant to say was: Frazzled Mod is bestest Mod!

Somewhat on topic, the first paragraph of this story is laugh out loud funny.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41464521/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

BUFFALO, New York — The founder of a Muslim-oriented New York television station was convicted Monday of beheading his wife in 2009 in the studio the couple had opened to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

I agree with MGS entirely on this issue. I refer you again to the lengthy report you can find here.

I found point 2 particularly interesting. How are the Canadians handling this issue?

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/new-report-sharia-law-in-britain-a-threat-to-one-law-for-all-and-equal-rights/

The report recommends that Sharia courts be closed on the grounds that they work against rather than for equality, and are incompatible with human rights. Recommendations include:

1.initiating a Human Rights challenge to Muslim Arbitration Tribunals and/or Sharia Councils
2.amending the Arbitration Act under which the Muslim Arbitration Tribunals operate in a similar way to which the Canadian equivalent of the Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration
3.launching a major and nationwide helpline and information campaign to inform people of their rights under British law
4.proposing legislation under the EU Citizens Rights Initiative to address the issue EU-wide, and
5.strengthening secularism and the separation of religion from the state, the judicial system and education, in order to more fully protect citizenship rights.

mattyrm wrote:

I agree with MGS entirely on this issue.

Here are come the End Times at last...

The first paragraph of the story was funnier than that mate.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I've mentioned this a few times in the thread but to reiterate, the court is subject to bias and unfair to certain groups. That is a problem within the greater society that claims to oppose unfair and bias yet enables this medieval idiocy to gain a foothold under the protection of a 'cultural right'.

You haven't addressed the point. The British Legal system cannot enforce a decision by a Sharia tribunal that contradicts British law.

If there is an bias against a women (seeing as homosexuals and ex-muslims are unlikely to agree to the process in the first place) which can in fact be enforced by the law then that is perfectly reasonable grounds for an appeal.

Your claim that they are 'gaining a foothold' as if this is some sort of subversive invasion is just the sort of alarmist nonsense that has caused this thread to drag on in a repetitive circle.

With regard your response here, you directly named me and took issue with my point hence my response you've quoted. I have not gone into the issue of honour killings being sanctioned by sharia courts in the uk. Other conversations are taking place in this thread, why didn't you quote them.

Actually, I was asking for clarification as I honestly thought you had made a mistake in your post. I don't know what Melissia is on about. I think s/he just wants to angry. You however, have mentioned domestic abuse. That is a criminal issue, and is not decided on by Sharia law in the England.

As for the element of bias:

1) consider peer pressure, the education and personal freedom of certain of the islamic population and the concept of a religious court then reconsider the term voluntary...

2) refer to point 1 directly above and consider peer pressure etc and the notion of trying to dispute the rulings of a court who base their adjudication in the written word of god.

If there is enough pressure to convince someone to go to a Sharia tribunal (only over civil matters) then there is enough pressure to convince them to not bring up the issue at all. This is not a problem with the Sharia courts, but with the community. And it is not restricted to Muslim communities.




The sad thing is Matty is right. If there was a vote held on whether or not Sharia tribunals as they exist should be close down, I'd bet that the vote in favour of shutting them down would be overwhelming. Precisely becuase of the widespread ignorance on the matter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

You haven't addressed the point. The British Legal system cannot enforce a decision by a Sharia tribunal that contradicts British law.

When was that the point of the thread?
It was a concern raised by some, I don't think I've raised it myself at any stage. The ordering of death sentences and the like being issued by Sharia courts isn't what bothers me and is in the realms of fantasy for the time being. I have, since the beginning of this thread, voiced concern over a court with prejudices, that operates purely along a religious text's instructions instead of having the influence of circumstance to consider, having a place in the UK legal system.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If there is an bias against a women (seeing as homosexuals and ex-muslims are unlikely to agree to the process in the first place) which can in fact be enforced by the law then that is perfectly reasonable grounds for an appeal.

I've already stated why appeal isn't an option for many women in the islamic community, several times.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Your claim that they are 'gaining a foothold' as if this is some sort of subversive invasion is just the sort of alarmist nonsense that has caused this thread to drag on in a repetitive circle.

No, what's causing a repetitive cycle is folks like you hopping in this late in the day and dragging up issues we've already covered off, like the option to appeal for a woman treated unfairly in the court. Read the thread.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Actually, I was asking for clarification as I honestly thought you had made a mistake in your post. I don't know what Melissia is on about. I think s/he just wants to angry. You however, have mentioned domestic abuse. That is a criminal issue, and is not decided on by Sharia law in the England.

Again, please read the thread, I've just cited an article that states the Sharia court had ruled in 6 cases of domestic violence by 2008, their decisions were that the men attend anger management and the marriages were, in the words of the islamic spokesman, 'saved'.

If there is enough pressure to convince someone to go to a Sharia tribunal (only over civil matters) then there is enough pressure to convince them to not bring up the issue at all. This is not a problem with the Sharia courts, but with the community. And it is not restricted to Muslim communities.

That two families may find themselves in conflict over a marital dispute and the patriarchs of both insist on the matter being resolved in Sharia, where the woman's rights will be secondary but both patriarchs are satisfied that God's law has been done should be a relatively easy scenario to reach.
As to pressure outside of the courts, that is of course, subject to the law of the land, unless instead it's going to be adjudicated on by a court of religion where such pressures are encouraged.

The sad thing is Matty is right. If there was a vote held on whether or not Sharia tribunals as they exist should be close down, I'd bet that the vote in favour of shutting them down would be overwhelming. Precisely becuase of the widespread ignorance on the matter.

You're likely to win that bet, but not for the reason you've convinced yourself of.

Melissia wrote:Against women, against homosexuals, against ex-muslims, and so on and so forth. The link on the first page tells a tale of an assault victim who was severely beaten and there was no criminal charge pressed because the community hid the assault from the authorities and instead used a Sharia court ruling. And yet for some reason people seem to think I'm being unreasonable when I say this not only can happen again, it will.

No, you're being unreasonable when you continuously raise issues that have no place in Sharia courts in the UK. The beating is a criminal matter, and as has been explained to you on many occasions criminal matters are not dealt with in Sharia courts in the UK.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I get the distinct impression from those who've been pushing for these courts that they would, eventually, want them to run like sharia courts in other parts of the world. The courts themselves have already been publishing two sets of outcomes, one that was actually passed and one that they would like to pass if the country wasn't run by those pesky non-believers.

Sure, they can push but when every man and his dog in the general community is opposed, what good will it do?

The sharia courts have already adjudicated in 6 cases of domestic violence. That over-reaches the current extent of a non-islamic civil court.

The Times wrote:Siddiqi said that 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. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
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.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
And that was 2 years ago, time has only entrenched this.

The criminal cases of domestic assault were dropped because the victims did not want to proceed with the case. That's something that happens constantly, with or without Sharia law.

The instance of the boys getting twice as much as the girls was family law, something I've said from early on should be taken out of the hands of the Sharia court.

Try doing that and you are, as far as the muslims running these things are concerned, trying to meddle in the written dictate of god and his prophet. Better to just insist they adhere to a British court whilst on British soil. Accommodating religious peculiarity at the expense of established equality and justice are not a way to conduct law.

They can be as concerned as they want, and they're welcome to lobby their local members to get them to vote against any move to reform the Arbitration Act. They'll lose though, because there really aren't that many of them, while there are a whole lot of folk who are concerned about the rights of women, and probably even more that'd vote for anything that limit the rights of Muslims.

They are taught in these religious schools, in their mosques and now in sharia courts, that our way is fundamentally wrong and ungodly and that we must be forced to their way of thinking. They are becoming more and more a ghettoised sub-culture within the greater society. The more freedoms to do what they want results in more isolation.

I don't think it can last without some form of violent backlash from one side or the other. You're right about schools, one of my best friends in secondary school was the only muslim kid there, an Iraqi boy, his father a doctor fleeing Saddam's regime. It was good for both sides to have exposure to each other. It's like all those repulsively clichéd song lyrics about children ignoring colour. Mixing is good for children. Raising Islamic children behind closed doors, unexposed to the rest of the UK is dangerous.

Yeah, on the one hand it'd be nice to shut down all religious schools and require everyone to get public education, all kids have to mingle and get along so there's you're melting pot sorted. The problem comes because from the number of outstanding religious schools that provide a really high standard of education, the result is that'd be neither politically viable or a good idea.

At which point you're left with wanting to leave the good schools in place, and get rid of the bad ones. And I've got no idea how that might be attempted.

If sharia is already dealing with domestic violence cases, it has over-reached the powers used by the Jewish courts. In all 6 cases reported in that Times report, the marriages were 'saved' and the wife was returned to live with the husband... It speaks volumes to me and reinforces my belief in what's wrong with these courts. Another difference in principles of Beth Din over Sharia is that Beth Din officially recognises the sovereignty of British Law over it's own, Sharia very clearly does not.

No, they dealt with the civil side of those domestic abuse cases. Police were still capable of pursuing any criminal charges.

Sharia court increasing influence over a wider range of aspects of the daily lives of muslims living in the UK is a forgone conclusion. The wrong in facilitating that is our cross to carry. We have damned those women back to the suffering they sought to escape. That's not just the fault of Islam, that the fault of every do-gooder who believed that ducking a potential accusation of racist was preferable to enabling domestic violence.

I think it's a mistake to assume that one's opponents only believe as they do because of some easy attack, such as wanting to avoid a charge of racism. I certainly know the type you're referring to on the left, who approach each issue with the goal of proving themselves more sanctimonious than anyone else, looking for any element of anything that might be perceived as being somehow intolerant, but while those people can unfortunately dominate and ruin otherwise useful discussion, they aren't the whole of the left.

Right to appeal is a difficult thing to monitor, many Islamic women in the UK don't even speak english, they will be unaware of what's available to them. And again, I'll reiterate the point that, unlike the Beth Din, this is a religious ruling before God. Saying you wish to go to the law of the land because you are unsatisfied with the outcome is akin to saying 'I don't like what god has said and I'd like to rely on an infidel's court to over rule it.'

Sure, but if that's the case, then without Sharia court what are the odds that the woman involved would seek resolution in a secular court?

I just learnt that bit about the domestic violence cases and those women's marriages being 'saved'. I am greatly troubled and saddened by it.

Secular courts won't rule a couple needs to be divorced either. That's entirely dependant on the couple. Given the women in question dropped the criminal matter, I think the odds of this gaining any kind of better resolution in a secular court is unlikely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:We live in a police state dont we? I mean, If your government decides to do something, they can go right ahead and do it. Sure you might vote them out YEARS later, but they can crack on regardless. Remember how many people were up in arms about Iraq? It makes not a single jot of difference!

Well, you're right in that people really don't have that nebulous thing called freedom, but it really isn't a police state. That'd require a police force actively committed to ensuring the stability of the state, likely through a network of informants or secret police spread out in society to uncover resistance cells.

Sharia law sucks balls. If they held a referendum on it, the populous would vote to ban it.

So feth em, lets do it.

Yeah, you absolutely could ban sharia courts, it would be overwhlemingly popular with the general population and fairly easy in terms of the law - you could just

The real question is if you should. If two people want to have a private civil matter resolved by an individual they've chosen, why can't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Does this mean the UK has to allow Scientology, for instance, to create side courts to arbitrate? Which religions/groups get this priveledge? I am not an expert (I know, shocking) on UK law so I don't how these 'courts' are granted legitimacy.

Well, basically anyone can agree to have their private legal matters decided by anyone else. That's basically what arbitration is, and two muslims going in to have their matter decided by a Sharia court is no different to two yahoos going in to Judge Judy's courtroom.

I am also not a lawyer so there might be some requirement for the courts to meet a certain standard, but I've never seen anything like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Somewhat on topic, the first paragraph of this story is laugh out loud funny.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41464521/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?gt1=43001

BUFFALO, New York — The founder of a Muslim-oriented New York television station was convicted Monday of beheading his wife in 2009 in the studio the couple had opened to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Mwahahahaha!

Wait, now I'm feeling guilty... and now I'm laughing again.

There is a lesson to be learned from this thread. That lesson: please take the time to carefully read the post you are responding to, as well as ones that you are not, before responding -OR- stay out of OT.

Thanks!