Shariah Law Gaining Strength in UK

I don't see that this affects anyone other than expat Somalis, private individuals.

 

More lack of assimilation.

It seems to invariably lead to problems down the line.

There seems to be little to be done by authorities when the injured party won't press charges. I just wonder what will happen when Sharia requires a hand to be cut off a thief or the death penalty is imposed.

 

This is what islam has always done . . .

OOOOOps, we are not supposed to know the truth.

If the terrorists find out that we know, they will blow something up.

 

Depends . . . sharia required the death penalty for saddam, osama, and many other terrorists . . . but, looked the other way.

 

Some facts (but please don't let that distract you from your fears):-

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), such as mediation, has been encouraged by the legal system in England and Wales for over 10 years. It saves vast amounts of court time and taxpayers' money.

2. Assault can be both a civil tort, resulting in compensation for the victim, and a criminal offence resulting in punishment for the perpetrator.

3. Where the victim of an assault fails to make a complaint to the police, the police don't usually prosecute

4. In this case the victim refused to press charges as in #3 and so the police didn't get involved

5. That leaves the civil claim. As per #1, ADR such as mediation is encouraged as a general rule. This is what happened here, resulting in compensation being paid to the victim; the concern seems to be that this mediation had a religious basis.

6. However, Jewish customary law has been used in mediation for decades if not centuries in this country.

7. In addition, the Church of England has had its own courts, officially recognised and sanctioned by the state, for, oh, centuries.

8. So the problem that the Torygraph seems to have with this is that the mediation basis was Islamic and the participants were Muslim. Quelle surprise!

 

While mediation exists in the US, it is secular. That said, churches do have similar mediation relating specifically to church members based on I Corinthians 6:5-7

Here an assault is looked upon as criminal first, then civil.

Same here -- but it is much harder to adjudicate a civil suit without the criminal conviction.

My concern is that this mediation does have a religious basis, and would be extended to function as it does in Muslim countries, which could effectively deny American court protection to Muslim women.

Not in the USA, however, so we are not discussing common ground. The USA has no state sanctioned religious organization -- nor do we wish to have any established.

Another difference. In America legal system, the goal is that the law treat men equally, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Bhuddist, athiest, etc. Our concern relates to a number of people who wish our laws and traditions changed.

 

But the OP referred to a situation in the UK - so the UK's current legal set-up is pertinent; the US' is not

 

True. Our concerns (not fears) relate to our own court system looking to world courts in making judicial reforms. Sandra Day O'Connor is one advocate of doing so. Thus, UK actions resonate.

 

We have both mediation and arbitration. They are alike in that the process must be agreed upon by both parties; however, mediation is not legally binding unless and until the parties involved subsequently make a contract to abide to whatever terms they agree to while arbitration is legally binding. In either case, there is no legal requirement that the arbitrator or the mediator be secular.

I looked it up:

Actually, like the UK, the US Jewish customary law has been used in mediation for decades if not centuries.

One issue that made an episode of Law and Order is the Jewish "get" which must be given by the ex-husband to the ex-wife so she can remarry. Some civil (secular) divorce settlements stipulate it - if not, the woman is at the mercy of her ex.

Men and women, increasingly.

US law does sometimes recognise separate Native American judgements within certain boundaries.

 

Somehow I can't quite picture that both sides in the dispute would agree to that.

 

Evil in any wrapper is still evil.

 

They don't. And neither did the mediation procedure in Woolwich. If it did, it would amount to a criminal conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm, for which the sentence can be life imprisonment.

 

Is there a mediation and/or arbitration system set up in a Muslim country? Just one?

As for the UK, there's this book I've been reading on this very topic, Londonistan.

 

Ah, Melanie Phillips (pbuh), the doyenne of the raving right. Think Rush Limbaugh in a skirt. Thanks but no thanks. Nuff said

 

It is good to have rational folks like Daisy and Matt explain this scenario. If course, those with irrational fears don't really care for facts.

Ontario debated and rejected this proposal last year but we have had voluntary Jewish and Catholic tribunals for civil disputes since 1991. One concern was women's rights and how "voluntary" may not be really "voluntary" when it comes to women and Islam. In the process of rejecting settling civil disputes using sharia law, our premier seems to have pulled the plug on all religious civil law tribunals.