Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

by Paul Jeeves, Daily Express

Thanks to Mark for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.express.co.uk:80/posts/view/5795

muslimsMUSLIM radicals have established their own draconian court systems in Britain.

Controversial Sharia courts have been set up in major towns and cities to impose Islamic law and enable Muslims to shun the legitimate British legal system.

Last night religious leaders and politicians expressed outrage that Sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in our society.

Critics insisted that the Govern ment is allowing a two-tier legal system to flourish in the name of political correctness and that the authority of UK justice is being undermined.

The Daily Express can reveal that one of the controversial courts has been set up in the home town of the 7/7 London bombings ringleader.

Mohammed Siddique Khan was responsible for the Edgware Road Circle Line explosion which killed six people and injured 120. Our investigation has found that the Sharia court system has been set up in the heart of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and that it is a model for others across the country which are operating outside the British legal process.

The Dewsbury court is called the Sharee Council — another term for Sharia — and operates as a Muslim judiciary making decisions by which attendees must abide.

In many countries, hard-line interpretations of the Islamic law allow people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated.

Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court which is registered as a charity to receive British tax benefits.
Although the court has no official legal standing, scales of justice adorn a sign outside a former pub building which has been converted by the Islamic Institute of Great Britain.

Last night the Sharia courts were blasted by both Christian and Muslim groups for their non-democratic attempts to establish their legal system.

Mark Wallace, campaign man ager of the Freedom Asso ciation said: "British society must be one of free speech, free personal choice, democratic freedom and fairness.

"If individual Muslims wish to inform their decisions by the teachings of Sharia, that is fine, but they must do it within the structures of British law and they must understand that sharia will never be acceptable as the legal system of the UK."

His views were echoed by the Muslim Council of Britain, whose spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: "We believe one legal code should apply for all citizens of the UK. There is no place for multiple legal systems for people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds."

Dewsbury councillor Imtiaz Ameen, a Muslim, said: "Some people advocate total Sharia law but you cannot have it being the case in any country that there is one law for one and one law for another."

Critics say the Government has not done enough to stop radical Muslim groups establishing their brand of law.
Liberal thinkers in the Gov ernment claim that the law enables full-face veil-wearing Muslim women who are afraid of British courts to gain justice the "traditional way".

But one insider told the Daily Express that the Sharia court, which is run from the backroom of a Madrasa — an Islamic education centre — in Dewsbury is just one of "dozens" operating in Asian communities. And a leading Muslim commentator claimed similar courts exist in every major city across Britain.

The Madrasa — which is a former pub situated less than a mile from the one-time home of London bombing mastermind Khan — sits as a court every other weekend and hears up to 10 cases a day.

Four Muslim scholars, who have spent their life studying and preaching the Koran, sit in judgment on an array of cases alongside a Muslim solicitor whose role is to advise on the implications of their rulings in British law.

The operation is headed by prominent scholar Sheikh Yaqub Munshi. Accounts for the Dewsbury court's parent company the Islamic Research Institute of Great Britain, show that it was registered in Dewsbury as a charity in 1996 with the ethos of promoting the advancement of Islamic religion and education in the United Kingdom.

Charitable status allows the organisation to claim tax relief and apply for government grants and trustee funding.

Between April 1999 and April 2004 its gross annual turnover rocketed from £2,500 to above £177,000. At the end of the last financial year it recorded total funds of £255,000 but it is not known if or how it charges for use of the service.

At the moment, the leaders insist they only deal with civil matters such as Muslim divorces, wedding dowries and asset sharing.

But the secretive Muslim-only nature of the dealings will provoke fears that radical Sharia law could be allowed
to spread across the Muslim population. The source said: "These courts take the law into their own hands and dish out punishment for bad behaviour.

"I have not heard of physical punishments being used but those in the wrong are often ordered to pay compensation. Many who have no respect for British law are the most stringent observers of Sharia law."

Sheikh Yaqub admitted that in troducing Sharia law into the UK has been his goal since moving to Britain from Paki stan in the 1960s.

But he insisted its main aim is to help repressed women who are trapped in bad or violent marriages and who dare not use British law.

He said: "Ever since I arrived here in the 1960s there has been a case of women being forced to get married, others forced to get married, but unhappy afterwards. Until now there was no organisation which could Islamically solve their problems."

Sharia is derived from the Arabic translation Sariah and outlines Islamic law according to the Koran. The term means "way" or "path" and gives the Islamic framework within which people must regulate their lives according to the Muslim faith.

After the Sharia court has ruled in judgment, solicitors process matters officially through UK courts on their clients' behalf.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said: "Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their tradition."

Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said: "I am ab solutely appalled and find the prospect of such courts totally terrifying. Places like this should be closed down or else everybody will want to establish their own courts.

"How many more places like this are there in the UK? Who knows where it could all end? It simply cannot be tolerated."

Comments 1 - 50 of 75 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #36564 by 42nd on May 1, 2007 at 3:15 pm

 avatarbehold... beginning of the end of western civilization, and no one even seems to care.

Other Comments by 42nd

2. Comment #36566 by PeterK on May 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm

"..behold... beginning of the end of western civilization, and no one even seems to care..."

..yep, and Dubya just announced he vetoed congress...

Other Comments by PeterK

3. Comment #36570 by cagliost on May 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Private courts like these are legal. A similar things is "Judge Judy" in the US. Both parties agree that their complaint will be heard by a private judge, and agree to abide by the decision (indeed, are legally bound to (with Judge Judy, damages are limited to $5000)).
Jewish courts have existed in the UK for a while.
Remember, both parties must agree to go to a private court, otherwise a public court decides. (An issue might be if people are pressured to go to a private court under duress (similarly, it is up to the individual whether they want to wear a headscarf, but people can be pressured to do so).

Other Comments by cagliost

4. Comment #36573 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm

 avatarTo put this in context, The Daily Express is a Princess Diana obsessed, racist, homophobic and utterly crackers right-wing rag with no credibility whatsoever beyond a declining circulation of thoroughly confused readers who find even the heroic small mindedness of the Daily Mail to be insufficiently offensive.

It is published by the man (I use the term loosely) who also brings us such delights as "Asian Babes" and "Extreme Housewives" (I am not making this up).

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

5. Comment #36574 by jorgepolak on May 1, 2007 at 3:37 pm

"Remember, both parties must agree to go to a private court..."

If a religion treats women as property and gives them no voice, how can they possibly choose which court they go to?

Besides, even if two individuals agree to resolve their differences themselves, they must still follow the law of the land. This is why dueling is illegal.

Other Comments by jorgepolak

6. Comment #36579 by weavehole on May 1, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Well, it seems to me she lived her life like a candle in the wind. Oh sorry, different Express article... this one seems more fueled by racism than rationalism. File under I for Ignore, everyone else will. Erm, 'cept possibly BNP.

Other Comments by weavehole

7. Comment #36583 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm

"Ever since I arrived here in the 1960s there has been a case of women being forced to get married, others forced to get married, but unhappy afterwards. Until now there was no organisation which could Islamically solve their problems."

Ahh! So this is the vanguard of women's rights! Silly me.

Other Comments by Roll

8. Comment #36587 by BaronOchs on May 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm

 avatarThe last cleric who tried to keep his own courts (Thomas Becket) got his head split open in his own Cathedral.

Dewsbury turned out the highest vote for the ludicrous british nationalist party at the last general election, with them gaining over 6000 votes. Admittedly there were incidental reasons for this (the conservative and labour candidates were both asian, there was no UKIP or Veritas candidate to split up the right wing vote and the BNP concentrated their campaigning there). Of course activity like this will be exploited as much as possible by the bnp and their ilk.

But this is a dangerous and subversive gesture. The article says it may provide a window of help for Muslim women (for instance) who will not use the public courts. The Muslim community should work to remove the obstacles people feel in doing so, i.e. lessening segregation not increasing it, and furthering ghettoisation. Also I recall (though I may be wrong) Sharia demands about four witnesses to substantiate a woman's claims compared to just one for a man.

Which idiot for that matter gave this court charity status?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

9. Comment #36589 by BaronOchs on May 1, 2007 at 4:42 pm

 avatarNeedless to say these courts will doubtlessly acquire their own little gangs of thugs to enforce their wise decisions, if they haven't done so already.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

10. Comment #36590 by vertigo25 on May 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm

 avatarI have to agree with weavehole. This is pretty much just an extremely slanted article promoting nationalism and xenophobia.

Every religion has similar "courts," and they are not in anyway a challenge to governmental law. Aside from religions there are other groups who have their own judicial systems such as universities and athletic organizations.

To be honest, even with my disdain of religion (especially the Abrahamic kind), I'm a bit disappointed that rd.net chose to republish this chest-beating piece. It's a not too thinly veiled racist inspired piece, and I certainly hope that the RD crew don't subscribe to this brand of irrational hate propaganda.

Other Comments by vertigo25

11. Comment #36601 by Ohnhai on May 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm

 avatarAs long as it is not treated as a 'Replacement' of UK law then fine. they can over legislate them selves as much as they like. But sadly I think there are many Muslims who would welcome Sharia as a direct replacement and not as a subordinate supplement where it doest contradict the law of the land.

Despite what may be held by some,Sharia Law as laid down by these private courts can not condone inter marital violence of any kind as that is prohibited by UK law. Should they do so then they are directly in breach of UK law and can and should be held accountable.

I just wish more UK resident Muslim women would realise this and understand that they DON'T have to live under Sharia law (enforced by the husband or these courts) if they don't want to.

TO: Vertigo25:
RD.NET republished many articles that are pro the general consensus and many that are anti the general consensus. RD.net is a site that doesn't stifle the opposing view, but shows it in it's true colours. Most of us here are smart enough to see through blatant or veiled homophobia, racism or other nasties.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

12. Comment #36603 by Ohnhai on May 1, 2007 at 5:47 pm

 avatarBTW: Why is the woman in the picture covering her eyes??!!? is she afraid we will recognise her face!!

Other Comments by Ohnhai

13. Comment #36606 by anotherclinton on May 1, 2007 at 5:59 pm

 avatarIs the bespectacled Daughter of Islam in the photo giving the camera the British version of the finger (Never learned the technical term for that)?

Other Comments by anotherclinton

14. Comment #36617 by EriolTolkien on May 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm

 avatarthe Fingers ?(technical term) ... yes, yes she is.

I am still pondering the phrase "Islamically solve their problems." WTF??

lemme see; Germany tried to "Nazistically solve their problems" = the Final Solution (which was neither)

Russia tried to "Stalinistically solve their problems" = Purges Propaganda & Prisons

and not to forget America trying to ">cough< Democratically solve their problems" = the world today.

sigh, hang on lads its gonna be a bumpy ride.

Other Comments by EriolTolkien

15. Comment #36622 by v4ri4bl3 on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 pm

I don't really respect this article much either. It sounds like nothing more than hearsay. Without an actual look at the practices going on it's impossible to determine if it is acceptable practice or not. This whole thing sounds like someone shouting "THEY ARE DOING A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!!!"

Other Comments by v4ri4bl3

16. Comment #36628 by Russell Blackford on May 1, 2007 at 7:31 pm

The article is too sensationalist and short on substance for me to draw any conclusions one way or the other. I'd hate to see this system of courts get any official recognition. However, if it's all really little more than a system of voluntary private conciliation and arbitration, with the outcomes subject to the oversight of the ordinary court system, it might not be bad; it might even do some good, depending on all the details.

Sensationalist (and possibly misleading) journalism is another problem for Western societies - it's not as if sectarianism is the only one.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

17. Comment #36638 by h2g2bob on May 1, 2007 at 9:16 pm

@Ivan The Not So Bad
I could not have put it better. The Express is the Daily Mail on crack.

Other Comments by h2g2bob

18. Comment #36649 by oskorei on May 1, 2007 at 11:33 pm

 avatarI am sorry; at a risk of sounding "nationalistic", I must say that people who move into any country must accept the due processes and laws of that country. If Muslims want to impose specific Islamic laws onto Britain, they must proceed by means provided democratically, or else have a violent revolution, instituting their own government, or be removed. I see no other options...Damn...and I consider myself strongly leaning towards anarchism! Maybe I am wrong (about myself, that is).

Other Comments by oskorei

19. Comment #36651 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 12:08 am

 avatarI must actually agree with oskorei.

The short of it is that they choose to live here, it's easy enough to get a passport and go elsewhere, this is a free country after all. I think it's time we gave a little less respect to their views and insisted they give a little more respect to ours. If British society is really that opposed to their views why not go somewhere that supports their views?

We as a society complain about all those people that come here wanting freedom and prosperity, yet those people that don't want freedom don't seem to want to leave.

I suspect that these radical Muslims want too much. They want all the prosperity and affluence that a free society brings without the actual freedom. If they get their way they'll lose both freedom and prosperity, as will the rest of us.

One thing is sure, if any ruling this Sharia "court" actually makes contravenes British law, then they'll find themselves in big trouble.

Here's an interesting thought... it says only Muslims are allowed inside. If I as an atheist wanted to see how a court like that worked and they denied me entry, I wonder if I'd have a case against them under religious discrimination laws.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

20. Comment #36652 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 12:21 am

 avatarI suspect some will read into what I've said as being BNP-esque, the truth is I'm actually mostly pro-immigration (with safe-guards). People choose to come to the UK because, when all is said and done, this is one of the richest, safest and most free and liberal countries in the world and anyone that wants to contribute to that and earn a share of that freedom and prosperity is more than welcome.

In this one respect, I think America might well be ahead of us.

Most immigrants I know (ironically, possibly even the fundamentalist Muslims) work hard and long and contribute much more to our society than some of our own population, that does nothing more than sit at home all day, living off benefits, watching TV.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

21. Comment #36654 by ktillyer on May 2, 2007 at 12:36 am

 avatarTo 'anotherclinton'
The 'V-sign' is itself intended to be offensive, as I'm sure you've gathered, and was racial in origin. It matters which way round one's hand is held when giving the 'V'. Palm facing out it means V-for-Victory a la Winston Churchill circa 1940. Palm facing in and it basically means (these days) F*ck off. It's origin lies in the Anglo-French medieval wars when it was customary to cut off the bow-string fingers of captured enemy archers. The act of gesturing to the enemy with the fingers in this way was to show them you could still shoot a bow at them - and would.
BTW, how do we even know the people in the photo ARE women? A baby-buggy and Dame Edna glasses do not a woman make.

Other Comments by ktillyer

22. Comment #36656 by AdrianT on May 2, 2007 at 12:50 am

 avatarThis is crazy. Whatever the credibility of the source of this particular article, any attempt to set up Sharia or any other legal system outside that of the British judiciary must be stopped. I think though, we need to have a comment from, for instance, gay muslims on things like this.

Other Comments by AdrianT

23. Comment #36659 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:06 am

While on paper people only go to these courts on a voluntary basis but in practice many women would be pressured into it. You probably know there was a compaign to allow Sharia in family arbitrations in Ontario, Canada. Even before it was successful some imams already said that muslims who didn't chose Sharia when that option was availiable should be considered apostates. Thankfully the move was defeated as a result of an impressive counter compaign led by moderate muslims. The government announced a catagorical ban of *all* religious arbitrations. It was a victory for secularism. I think perhaps the U.K should consider doing the same.

Btw, moderate muslims, especially a few very outspoken muslim women should be credited for this victory. The mainstream secular society was by and large uninterested, perhaps thinking that it was primarily a muslim issue rather than an issue of equality under one law. Some muddled headed secular liberals actually supported the proposal in the name of "multi-culturalism".

Other Comments by Bonzai

24. Comment #36660 by gcdavis on May 2, 2007 at 1:06 am

 avatarThis first surfaced six months ago (not exactly a scoop for the Express) so I am reposting this comment

We haven't had much discussion about multiculturalism so I am about to leap in head first! Immigration to the UK is not a new phenomenon, throughout our history we have absorbed immigrants, most have come from Europe and have been racially and culturally similar and after a couple of generations most have become indistinguishable from the rest of the population. It is only since the WW2 that we have seen mass immigration; by people who looked and behaved very differently to us. They came from the Caribbean, India and Pakistan as well as sizeable numbers from West Africa and South East Asia. These immigrants have tended to live in fairly large communities rather than spread out and many have preferred to maintain this separation and insularity. This has given rise to the concept of multiculturalism.

I think the advocacy of multiculturalism in the UK is something we will live to regret, it encourages cultural apartheid and is a breeding ground for religious intolerance and extremism. The alternative to multiculturalism is surely an expectation that when immigrants come to our country they adapt to our customs, culture, law and language and that they abandon any native customs that conflict with those of the host nation.

So what or who is the host nation? Too big a subject to debate in one post; it suffices to say that it requires a notion of a British (or indeed English) cultural identity and that is a difficult to pin down. One characteristic is our traditional fairness and tolerance; another is our fervent support of free speech. We are subject to and protected by a legal system developed and refined over many centuries. It is not perfect, but it has many checks and balances that make justice more likely and crucially it is independent from government, religious and other pressures.

So where is multiculturalism leading us? Well according to the BBC Law in Action programme, one potentially dangerous development is that of alternative "legal" systems; these informal "village" courts, based on alien tribal and religious customs, have begun to appear within some ethnic minority/religious groups to resolve civil disputes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm
How long before they try to expand their "remit?

Of course multiculturalism is inextricably bound to religion; hence this post that I hope will provoke a response. Finally I would be appalled if these comments should portray me as racist. I am not! But debate unfettered by political correctness is what atheists are good at

Other Comments by gcdavis

25. Comment #36662 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:16 am

I don't think multiculturalism per se is the problem. In the U.K (and Europe in general) you don't really have multicultralism but what Amartya Sen called "plual monocultutralism" which is an adapatation of the colonial technique to manage the immigrant population.

Multi-culturalism by and large works very well in Canada. It is not an alternative to integration, but rather it provides a setting for immigrants to integrate in their own pace. It has been quite successful for most immigrant groups, the radical musims are an anomaly. Most immigrants are not hostile to the basic values of secular democracy like these people.

The U.K's tolerence of Islamism is imo a strange quid pro quo offered to the muslim population because of Iraq. This is patronizing, condescending and racist. This kind of policies empower some of the most socially reactionary factions within the muslim community. The Blair government seems to consider any mulsim cleric a "moderate" regardless how odious his social views are as long as he doesn't call for jihad.

Other Comments by Bonzai

26. Comment #36664 by gcdavis on May 2, 2007 at 1:27 am

 avatarPoint taken Bonzai but each country is different. The UK is a small crowded place. Recent stats show that in UK primary schools English is not the first language for one out of every seven children. Imagine the strain that puts on the education system. Since Poland joined the EU a few years back we have had 600,000 Polish migrants, most of them Catholics.

Other Comments by gcdavis

27. Comment #36665 by Russell Blackford on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 am

If it's a voluntary private arbitration system, I don't see how it can be stopped, any more than you could stop two people in a commercial dispute from agreeing to abide by the opinion of the local imam, or the local vicar, or a stray barrister, or someone from the chamber of commerce. There are already numerous alternative dispute resolution arrangements going on outside of the real legal system, and this is usually thought of as a good thing to take pressure of the courts, deliver a less formal and expensive venue, etc., etc. We may not much like it being done in this particular context, associated with notoriously patriarchal religious authorities, but I don't see how we can consistently stop them, and only them, from setting up a system of unofficial alternative dispute resolution.

In my opinion, the principled role for the state with these things is to give them no official recognition at all, either to support them (financially or otherwise) or to try to suppress them. Treat it exactly as if it were a commercial service offered by, say, a barrister looking to make a buck by offering mediation services to litigants. That rules out any charitable status or other official concessions.

In some cases, where the courts need to give their imprimatur before an actual outcome can be implement, that kind of outcome can be scrutinised, but that's not the same thing as the state trying to stop the whole process.

Of course, if it's more than that (i.e. if it is going to get any official recognition as part of the UK legal system, or if it is made compulsory) I'll be the first person to oppose it. Well, not literally - since I'm from Australia, not the UK - but I'd certainly oppose it in my own country.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

28. Comment #36668 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 2, 2007 at 1:31 am

I'm having trouble believing these comments.

Question: When fifty percent of British Muslims want Britain under Shariah law...
When the supporters are largely the young men, who form the vanguard of most revolutionary movements...
When they can be whipped into a frenzy calling for "Death to those who behead Islam"...

Does anyone really think that Shariah courts will be limited to the Muslims? Does anyone really think it is going to stay in quiet ghettos and leave the rest of us alone?

Being against Muslim immigration has nada to do with being pro-BNP, or racist or anything else. Hindus and Sikhs will actually be even worse off than Christian and Jews under Shariah. Google "dhimmi" and inform yourself about that.

I am in favour of immigration, so long as that is not Muslim immigration. The way I see it, unlimited Muslim immigration is tantamount to throwing Christians, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists and so under into the meat-grinder.

And if our elites do not start acknowledging the painfully obvious, then they will be inviting serious problems. Because, as things stand, the only political party that's being honest about what Islam actually teaches and advocates is the BNP. And when people are frightened and have no other outlet, Bad Things Happen.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

29. Comment #36671 by A Norwegian on May 2, 2007 at 1:37 am

The Britts have finally lost it.

Other Comments by A Norwegian

30. Comment #36676 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:55 am

Russell Blackford wrote:

>>If it's a voluntary private arbitration system, I don't see how it can be stopped, any more than you could stop two people in a commercial dispute from agreeing to abide by the opinion of the local imam, or the local vicar, or a stray barrister, or someone from the chamber of commerce<<

I disagree. A dispute settlement has to be ultimately sanctioned by the law of the land. For example, a private prenubtial agreement that one may sign with his wife that would allow him to not pay child support in the event of a devorce will not be recognized as legitimate. Sharia is highly patriarchal and it tends to be interpreted by the most conservative religious scholars. The state must not be expected to rubberstamp decisions reached by such "courts" or it would be a travesty. That being the case any decision reached by such "courts" should be considered null and void.

On a broader point, everyone is supposedly equal before the law. It is intolerable in a secular democracy that citizens are treated differently based on their religion affiliations. A modern state is made up of individual citizens, not a collective of tribes,--hence I disagree with some posters who seem to be saying that it is ok as long as Sharia only applies to muslims. This is a matter of principle.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #36678 by Peacebeuponme on May 2, 2007 at 1:59 am

ktillyer: Sorry to be a pedant. check out http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm

It's another urban myth. Still means fuck you though and particularly amusing to see brandished by a burhka person.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

32. Comment #36679 by aleprechaunist on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 am

As long as the UK legal system trumps any attempts to intitiate full-blown sharia activities, I don't see the relevance of this article.

Like it or lump it, in our society there is no law against a group of like-minded people getting together and following a set of shared values provided it doesn't conflict with the law of the land, and impinge on peoples' rights...

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

33. Comment #36684 by gcdavis on May 2, 2007 at 2:41 am

 avataraleprechaunist Shared values are the nub of the issue. Not shared between small groups of people, but shared by us, the British. It irritates me when I see "community leaders" or "representatives of faith groups" being interviewed, all speaking for minorities that should have been integrated into our society and so not need this special pleading. And if they do not integrate we have to find out why and alter policy accordingly.

Other Comments by gcdavis

34. Comment #36685 by Absinthius on May 2, 2007 at 2:51 am

 avatarThats right let the justice system get more infected with religious factors.

Everyone knows us atheists have 'no morals'

I cant believe this crap!

Other Comments by Absinthius

35. Comment #36687 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 2:53 am

gcdavis,

Actually these "community leaders" and "representatives of faith groups" are creations of the U.K government. They have no legitimacy in their communities. It is just bizzare for Blair to ask these people for advice and cooperation against radicalism. Since when does the leader of a democratic government have to speak to citizens through unelected surrogates? If I were a U.K muslim I would have found the gesture offensive to the exterme.

This is what I meant when I said that "multi culturalism" in the U.K is a colonial technique to manage the domestic immigrant population.

Other Comments by Bonzai

36. Comment #36689 by sheepscarer on May 2, 2007 at 2:56 am

 avatarWe already have superstitious nonsense infiltrating hard won secular structures. On the animal welfare front we allow halal practices to bypass normal concerns for the humane dispatching of animals.

Other Comments by sheepscarer

37. Comment #36690 by Luthien on May 2, 2007 at 3:01 am

 avatar
Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court which is registered as a charity to receive British tax benefits.


How can they give them charitable status?!?!

Other Comments by Luthien

38. Comment #36694 by Bob Russell on May 2, 2007 at 3:13 am

I do not see any women in the above photo. All I see is chattel. Slaves to religious ignorance.

I shudder to think about some of the decisions by bearded, superstitous, intolerant, Imams. No wait that's not fair. Just because they are bearded means nothing. That insults all people with beards.

They wanted to do this in Ontario, Canada but thanfully the government choose wisely and sharia law is not officially practised there.

Women's rights are human rights.

Other Comments by Bob Russell

39. Comment #36696 by mr-zero on May 2, 2007 at 3:16 am

 avatarOh come on - we really don't need to be quoting the Express in our support. The Express is a poisonous hate filled racist rag. In the same way that you wouldn't get information from a member of the KKK or a fundi, there will be no useful information here.
The article will be bollocks from beginning to end.
Don't even read it.
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

40. Comment #36698 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 3:22 am

The newspaper maybe crappy but this is not the first time you hear about some muslims pushing for Sharia in the U.K. It has been covered by other news outlets like the bbc and the guardian for at least several years.

Other Comments by Bonzai

41. Comment #36700 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 2, 2007 at 3:28 am

 avatarI am gratified to see plenty of negative reactions to this article. It is extreme, sensationalist and borderline hysterical. Yet it drew me in for the first few lines:-(

33. Comment #36679 by aleprechaunist on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 am
aleprechaunist has it in one. This is a non event dressed up as "INVASION!!!!".

Many of you know that as a victim of religious indoctrination, I despise all religions and dogma. However these kind of articles are just as bad, in fact they are the same thing with the minor tweak that the dogma on offer is some variant of western/christocultural nationalism.

Guys. We must be constantly wary of our own capacity for self delusion.

Being an atheist/agnostic/freethinker does not "deliver" us from all the cognitive limitations that humans are subject to. At best we can hope to be more aware of them, and subject emotive reactions to that much more detached rational analysis.

No divine assistance here, we are on our own. BEWARE ... REALLY.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

42. Comment #36704 by deejay on May 2, 2007 at 3:48 am

After observing two 'legal' systems operating in Australia , the national system and indigenous traditional law it is not successful and a nightmare when trying to apply the law of the land .Dreadful crimes are given minimum penalties in the case of indigenous offenders and for a similar offence quite severe penalties are handed down in the general community. It's another version of the old cry ,'one law for the rich and another for the none rich,'It simply doesn't work but in the case of UK it is beyond the point of no return so get used to it.

Other Comments by deejay

43. Comment #36715 by stephenray on May 2, 2007 at 4:46 am

It's nonsense.

For a start off, the jewish Beth Din system has been working in England for ages.

These work very similar to that, I would imagine, of the People's Court TV programmes, that is to say if both parties submit themselves to the authority of the 'court' in question, it becomes a species of contract.

Sharia courts would have no power whatsoever to implement their judgments if either party decides to go off to the County or High Court and make a claim there. Their decisions would be considered only in so far as it could be shown that both parties agreed to be bound by that decision.

If under the law of England a judgment differs from that of the sharia court, its decision will prevail. However, if both parties had agreed to be bound by the sharia court but the losing party then refused to abide by its decision, the other party might have an action for breach of contract.

In other words, (e.g.) whatever the sharia court says, you aren't divorced in England until a Court grants the decree absolute.

Other Comments by stephenray

44. Comment #36718 by Hewhoisknowastim on May 2, 2007 at 4:51 am

This can't be all that bad. I am reminded of a Rumpole episode where he defends a C of E Reverend in a church court. Though truthfully I can't imagine what Rumpole would make of Muslim sharia law.

Other Comments by Hewhoisknowastim

45. Comment #36723 by dancingthemantaray on May 2, 2007 at 5:12 am

ARRGGHHH I DON'T KNOW IF WHOEVER PUT THIS UP HERE IS BRITISH OR NOT BUT SERIOUSLY, THIS IS FROM THE DAILY EXPRESS- BRITISH TABLOID CRAP, DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Other Comments by dancingthemantaray

46. Comment #36729 by Russell Blackford on May 2, 2007 at 5:37 am

Bonzai, you say you disagree with me ... but I'm genuinely puzzled, because cannot see a single point that you make that disagrees with what I said in my post. Well, except perhaps the last sentence of your first para, which is, with all respect (as you know, I like your contributions), a non sequitur.

As a more general point, we will not win the struggle against supernaturalism in the courts or by legislative restrictions. We are just going to have to win hearts and minds with our ideas and whatever eloquence we can muster. If the supernaturalists want to do something that is perfectly legal for anyone else to do, which may be the case here - I'm not sure because the article is so badly written - I am not going to try to invoke the power of the state to stop them.

As another example, I'm not going to advocate enacting laws to prohibit parents from teaching supernaturalist beliefs to their children, even though I don't like it. What I am going to advocate is simply that we stop going out of our way to make the parents feel comfortable about it. I will also strongly advocate that the state cease subsidising it with funding and tax concessions to such bodies as supernaturalist schools.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

47. Comment #36733 by bamboospitfire on May 2, 2007 at 5:43 am

 avatarIf Muslims want to settle their differences in a Sharia court from which I am excluded by virtue of my atheism, I could not care less. If I have a grievance with a Muslim, it will be dealt with in the British courts as usual. The decision of a Sharia court is totally meaningless to me.

The only issue of relevance is whether there is any serious threat of the British legal system being replaced by Sharia law. I can't see that happening in any event, but if it is already open to Muslims to refer their disputes to a Sharia court then there really is no need for Britain to be subjected to Sharia law across the board. It seems to me that the existence of these courts entirely undermines the already weak argument for full imposition of Sharia law in Britain.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

48. Comment #36738 by mrjonno on May 2, 2007 at 5:56 am

Usual sensational trash

British society and in fact most western ones (bar possibly the US) encourage civil disputes between individuals to be resolved without resorting to the full legal system. It's generaly cheaper, less painful for all involved.

If both sides agree to abide by its decisions it is perfectly legal as long as the procedure and decisions do not go against the law of the land.

A divorce settlement (but not the divorce) can be settled outside court but child maintainance cannot be (we have specific laws regarding this)

Other Comments by mrjonno

49. Comment #36739 by Peacebeuponme on May 2, 2007 at 6:03 am

The express should also report on the sinister practice of footballers dealing with their cultural issues through the "FA tribunal"

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

50. Comment #36742 by genius2687 on May 2, 2007 at 6:11 am

Wow, and the same happens in the rest of Europe.

I can't believe Britain is acting this childish and weak. To be so hypersensitive towards the Muslim population that they have to compromise their secular values.

That picture of the women in veils portrays a religion that is dead both intellectually and morally.

I just wonder what the British population will think when these Muslims start to behead homosexuals and atheists in the streets.

I'm from the states so my opinion on British society might be slightly biased, but if you look at British society today, not only do you have multiculturalism to the extreme, but the society itself is extremely materialistic and seems to care about celebrities, fashion, etc.

This isn't the mentality and character of Britain like 100 years ago.

Thinking about it, I have so much more respect for the British leadership who fought against us in the American revolution and the war of 1812 than what I see today. At least those people had some sense of strength and character.

Other Comments by genius2687
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE