Sharia in the UK? What are the Brits Thinking?

[longknife]

From Cranmer: Islam, equality and inclusivity

Saturday, April 06, 2013
Islam, equality and inclusivity

Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

They are trying to creep into our US legal system. Are we going to let this happen here?

 

[freedombecki]

From Cranmer: Islam, equality and inclusivity

Saturday, April 06, 2013
Islam, equality and inclusivity

Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

They are trying to creep into our US legal system. Are we going to let this happen here?

Have you not noticed the court finagaling of Lawyers Hill, Bill, Michele, and Barack? The precinct chairmen across the nation put them there. Not only is it happened, it is probably reasonable to say it is irreversible, considering that Obama is now dispensing law from the White House and not legislative law. The people's precinct chairpersons have overseen the division of the House and senate so effectively, they have handed the keys of legislation to the White House, which is also altering the bench.

We're almost where Venezuela was in Hugo Chavez' early second administration. He did away with Venezuela's Constitution which provided Venezuelans a democratic republic. I don't see a lot of respect for the US Constitution's charge of placing legislation and financial arrangements under Congressional control. The White House is taking advantage of the disarray and pooping out one presidential fiat after another, much of it involves printing money the WH has determined it is going to spend, whether Congress approves or not.

 

[Sunni Man]

The jews in America have used similar civil arbitration courts called Beth Din for decades.

So there is no reason the muslims shouldn't be allow to use sharia courts for their arbitration issues.

Beth din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FA_Q2]

From Cranmer: Islam, equality and inclusivity

Saturday, April 06, 2013
Islam, equality and inclusivity

Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

They are trying to creep into our US legal system. Are we going to let this happen here?

Correct me if I am wrong BUT,

Don’t BOTH parties have to agree to use this system in order for it to take over. I do not think that such a system is applicable when it comes to criminal offenses but I don’t care what law 2 parties decide to subject themselves willingly, as long as the arbitrations of the court are legal and the venue agree upon by both parties before entering into this system.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

From Cranmer: Islam, equality and inclusivity

Saturday, April 06, 2013
Islam, equality and inclusivity

Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

They are trying to creep into our US legal system. Are we going to let this happen here?

We already are. That is what the new law - American law for american courtrooms - is all about. To stop sharia law in american courtrooms.

 

[freedombecki]

The jews in America have used similar civil arbitration courts called Beth Din for decades.

So there is no reason the muslims shouldn't be allow to use sharia courts for their arbitration issues.

Beth din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you mean well, Sunni, but our system disallows honor killings, and that's that.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Dude, why do post this blog garbage every other day? Jesus. We get it already. You've posted your same anti Muslim blogs for a while now. Get over yourself.

 

[Sunni Man]

The jews in America have used similar civil arbitration courts called Beth Din for decades.

So there is no reason the muslims shouldn't be allow to use sharia courts for their arbitration issues.

Beth din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you mean well, Sunni, but our system disallows honor killings, and that's that.

I am talking about sharia courts for civil law not criminal law. ...

 

[Connery]

From Cranmer: Islam, equality and inclusivity

Saturday, April 06, 2013
Islam, equality and inclusivity

Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

They are trying to creep into our US legal system. Are we going to let this happen here?

No one can be legally bound by religious law because religious laws cannot be espoused by the government. If the parties agree to it, religious laws cannot conflict with criminal or civil laws under the First Amendment, it would be enforceable within the religious community. "(See Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872) (“All who united themselves to such a body [the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are bound to submit to it.”)."

Foreign or religious law can and should be used in certain situations. "For example, parties to a contract enjoy a great deal of leeway to establish binding agreements requiring contractual disputes to be submitted to arbitration. In their arbitration agreement, the disputing parties can bind themselves to use a particular arbitrator. Courts have held that arbitration agreements providing for what is commonly referred to as “biblically based mediation” (relying on specified principles of the Christian Bible) are enforceable."

There have been attempts to use sharia law where domestic relations are at issue. For example, "sharia in domestic courts is S.D. v. M.J.R., a New Jersey domestic violence case. In that dispute, a Muslim wife filed for a restraining order against her husband after several instances of physical abuse and non-consensual sexual intercourse. Though the trial court found that the defendant had engaged in sexual acts that were clearly against his wife’s wishes, it did not grant a final restraining order because the husband lacked the requisite criminal intent to commit sexual assault. This decision was based on the theory that the defendant acted based on his religious belief that a husband may demand to have intercourse with his wife whenever he desired. On appeal, the New Jersey Appellate Division overturned the trial court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court for entry of a final restraining order. Noting that the case involved “a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts,” the appellate court held that the defendant knowingly engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse and thus could not be excused for his religious beliefs."

Also, the government is prohibited from interfering with religious activities. "Proposals to ban sharia raise a serious dilemma for legal scholars and jurists because the composition of sharia remains debated among various Islamic sects and scholars. Without an authoritative body of law with specific parameters, courts may find themselves faced with a need to determine the precise principles of sharia and thus offer judgment on the content of a religious doctrine, which is generally impermissible under the First Amendment."

"In 1872, the Court recognized that matters of religious doctrine should be determined within the authority of the particular church and should be separate from any secular legal interpretation: The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. … "

All who united themselves to such a body [the general church] do so with an implied consent to [its] government, and are bound to submit to it. But it would be a vain consent and would lead to total subversion of such religious bodies, if any one aggrieved by one of their decisions could appeal to the secular courts and have them [sic] reversed. It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for*.

Thus, the Court established the principle that determinations of church doctrine and practice were to be free of government control well before it had even developed other aspects of its First Amendment jurisprudence. That general principle has since been cited by the Court in a number of First Amendment cases involving challenges of government interference in internal church matters."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41824.pdf

*(see Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872), quoted in Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 446 (1969). See also Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1 (1929) (“In the absence of fraud, collusion, or arbitrariness, the decisions of the proper church tribunals on matters purely ecclesiastical, although affecting civil rights, are accepted in litigation before the secular courts as conclusive, because the parties in interest made them so by contract or otherwise.”).

 

[blackcherry]

From Cranmer: Islam, equality and inclusivity

Saturday, April 06, 2013
Islam, equality and inclusivity

Islamic shari’a councils are recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. There are now around 90 such councils operating as recognised tribunals, and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

They are trying to creep into our US legal system. Are we going to let this happen here?

We already are. That is what the new law - American law for american courtrooms - is all about. To stop sharia law in american courtrooms.

Islamophobia at its most tragic and laughable .
Why don't you American antis find out exactly what we do , in what circumstances and with what results ?
Then you might stop your silly uninformed yapping and try and work out why you are so Gun and violence crazed as a nation .

 

[whitehall]

When the #1 name for newborn male children is "Mohammed" in the capital city the Brits tend to pay attention to popular opinion. The country formerly known as England hasn't had a strong leader since Churchill with the possible exception of Lady Thatcher. When the token monarchy turned out to be nothing but a bunch of degenerates and they started awarding Knighthood to homosexual piano players it was down hill all the way.