We already have Sharia courts in the UK.

thats so tolerant and beautiful

By the way, you can also go to Jewish arbitration and presumably, if you can find someone offering the service, Leprechaun arbitration too.

There have been cases where that arbitration seems to have over ruled the law though and there have been some women who feel they have been unfairly treated by the sharia courts. It seems to be a weird gray area where because the state doesn't officially recognize the marriage it means that they dont have the same rights when they divorce or something. I can ask my sister as she is a Muslim.

They seem to run like parallel to our court systems and at times it can complicate things at least according to some women who have used these courts and have complained that they werent treated fairly.

If they have no legal binding what so ever why are some Muslim women complaining that they have been treated unfairly , can they not just get our court system to over rule them?


Im not in favor of any religious court or arbitration system that runs parallel to ours that is based on an ancient book that can be interpreted in loads of different ways. That includes Jewish Christian or Scientologist councils


We will have a better discussion if you stop acting so smug all the time.

What side is it you think im on?

Im pro immigration , have grown up with and am friends with Muslims and my sister is a Muslim. I was just pointing out to Juan that we have a form of Islamic court that has some authority over Muslims in this country I never claimed to be an expert and am happy to discuss it if you can get off your high horse for a bit.

There is no Sharia law in Britain. Both parties in a dispute can agree to arbitration using Sharia law. If that doesn't work out for both parties is immaterial to the existence of Sharia law in Britain. You claimed there was Sharia law in Britain as if that was a fact because you are a lying liar who should not be listened to.

I hope I am correct in thinking that they could have if they did not agree in the first place to be bound by those arbitration forums (what you're calling a court). In other words, I hope that they could have said, no, I want to be heard in a normal court, and then they would have been.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't care whether he made that mistake. Please don't assume the rest of us on his "side" are making the same mistake.

When you say the other "side" makes a mistake, you're generalizing in a way the is not helpful to the discussion.

There have been some cases where a divorce has been complicated because a couple had an Islamic wedding and so werent recognized in the eyes of the state and so didnt have the same rights as a regular married couple and the women has complained that she wasnt treated fairly by the Islamic council.

And dont get me wrong im not saying that this is common place but even if it is a rare instance it is still something to be concerned about.

These are the complications that makes me have reservations about these councils.


It cant be that I was mistaken. It must be that I am a Islamophobic liar who was trying to deceive people. How very charitable.

The divorce situation that I described above means that these Islamic courts are sometimes leading to women being treated badly and unfairly which is a cause for concern.

^^^ This is interesting. Arbitration presents a complicated legal issue. The rights of those agreeing to arbitration must be tracked and protected.

I'll give a little bit of background. Typically, arbitration arises because two businesses enter a business contract and they state that arbitration will be used in case they have a disagreement about something in the contract. The arbitration statement (clause) may even state what types of future potential disagreements are subject to arbitration. For other future potential disagreements, the companies are free to take their disagreement to regular courts.

Then they do, in fact, get into a disagreement about something in the contract. One party sues in regular court, asserting that the subject of the disagreement is outside the types of disagreements stated to be subject to the arbitration clause. The court must decide whether the subject of the disagreement is inside our outside the types of disagreements stated to be subject to the arbitration clause. If subject to the arbitration clause, then the court boots them out of court to go to arbitration. If not subject to the arbitration clause, then the court keeps the dispute in court and proceeds to decide the dispute.

All of that is background to say, should a woman seeking a divorce be forced to keep the divorce before the "arbitration" court (Islamic court), or should she be allowed to go before the normal courts?

I'm assuming that somehow (worst case for the woman), she usually has to agree in the marriage situation to agree that any divorce will be taken before the arbitration (Islamic court).

There is another issue. It is the relative power between the parties. Does public policy or equity or social justice require that the woman be allowed to take her case before the regular courts. I would like to know if women have tried this. Are they kicked out by the court saying you have to take this to the arbitrator (Islamic court)?


We don't even know that you were mistaken. Kerowo often resorts to calling people names. I would ignore that.

So rather than Sharia law being a thing, we're talking about arbitration services to resolve conflicts between people who aren't actually married and thus have little legal obligation to each other on separation?

And the law constrains the arbiters, not the other way round.

I think they are actually married. Just not married by the state. Does the state recognize their marriage for tax purposes, or for other legal rights?

Plus, custody over children is a real thing that the state has an interest in.

Sorry, chez, not sure where this should be carried on if not here.

IANAL but most marriages will be recognised by the UK if they're official in the country of origin. He was talking about people who had an "Islamic marriage" and I assume that doesn't mean out of the country or he'd have said the country. But you know, this is just spew about alleged Sharia law so I'm not expecting consistency.

I am talking about Islamic marriages in the UK, so I think we are on the same page there.

But I'm saying (1) it is a marriage, and (2) the state has an interest in seeking a just outcome, whether for equity for the oppressed women and children generally, or specifically about custody.

To me, this is still a question of whether Sharia law is being enforced in the UK. Isn't it possible (not determined in my view yet) that the state is shirking it's duty to these women, and just putting them off under the pretext that this is an arbitration issue when, in reality, there are larger justice issues at stake than just an arbitration question.

Moved this discussion from the moderation thread. Re Sharia the following site may be a useful start.
https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

deleted, because chez put the material above.

deleted, because chez put the material above.

from the UK gov't on counterextremism

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...le.pdf#page=20

17. Many people in this country of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit from the guidance they offer. Religious communities also operate arbitration councils and boards to resolve disputes. The overriding principle is that these rules, practices and bodies must operate within the rule of law in the UK. However, there is evidence some Shari’a councils may not follow this principle and that Shari’a is being misused and applied in a way which is incompatible with the law.

48. In some cases there is evidence of a problem, but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved. As set out in paragraph 17, one example of this involves the application of Shari’a law. We will therefore commission an independent review to understand the extent to which Shari’a is being misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law. This is expected to provide an initial report to the Home Secretary in 2016.

I don't know what you mean. What do you mean by an "Islamic marriage"? My second cousin is in an "Islamic marriage" but it's recognised by the state because she signed a legit marriage document. This isn't an Islamic/non-Islamic thing. This is a marriages legitimately recognised by the state thing.

If it's (1) then you have the full rights that British law grants you and an arbiter can't rule for something illegal and expect that to be upheld.

In the sense of any normal UK law, it's not.

Still no idea what you're talking about. People legally married under UK law have the rights associated with that. People not married under UK law don't and can enter arbitration if both parties agree.

OK, I thought people were getting married only by Islamic councils, and not getting a marriage by the UK government. Still don't know which is the case, except for your second cousin.

So if we are talking about the case where they have UK gov't recognized marriages, then they want a divorce, they would have the right to a UK gov't court divorce proceeding. In those circumstances, and then they voluntarily go to the Sharia court/arbitration, I would have less sympathy, though still some sympathy if they are getting screwed contrary to UK law.

I believe that is what is stated in the UK gov't doc I quoted above. (Found it in the reference chez cited.) That was a 2014 report, which stated that a study would be done, to be expected completed in 2016. I want to see if that ever came out, and what the UK gov't has done/said if anything further.

Teresa May appointed Mona Saddiqui as chair of the committee reviewing whether Muslim women are being denied rights due them under U.K. Law. Still trying to Find the result. Here is a reference to one of her statements on the subject.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/...rity-a/7923602

Apparwntly, many women are severely mistreated by sharia courts according to the BBC on the show called Panorama.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rxfjt

Woman fears physical abuse. Even has a restraining order against her husband but must bring her abuser to court.

One woman hired Barrister Charlotte Proudman to represent her but still couldn't have legal representation before the court.

I think it's much worse in many cases where they only have a sharia marriage. The woman can't get a reasonable division of property. Plus they may be forced to bring a child to another country in order to get a divorce.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhbkyCjIvuw

Thats the documentary you are after. Watched it a while back will rewatch again. Remember thinking that you basically at the mercy of how ever your local Imam interprets the Quaran of Hadith which is we know can vary massively.

Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.

So what we're getting to is that you don't like the judgements of Sharia arbiters and think people shouldn't use them?

Cool. I'm fine with that.

But we're now a long long way from the premise that there is Sharia law in the UK.