Do we allow Sharia law in this country?

[happydappy2]

I thought we all had to abide by British Law-wtf is going on? This is bad for women...surely this isn't true
https://x.com/benhabib6/status/1949438058723528730

Jewish and Sharia religious courts in the UK, known as Beth Din and Sharia councils respectively, operate differently despite both being based on religious law. Beth Dins, within the Jewish community, can make legally binding rulings in civil disputes when both parties agree to arbitration under the Arbitration Act. Sharia councils, within the Muslim community, do not have legal jurisdiction in the UK and their decisions are not legally binding. I.e why the fuss around the one and not the other....

Can't The see where Islam is being discriminated against. It has the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT)

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT)
Sharia councils are not the only groups dealing with Muslim divorces. The MAT is a separate
entity from sharia councils which has existed since the early 2000s and operates under the
Arbitration Act 1996 to provide binding arbitration services for commercial issues. Decisions at the
MAT can be enforced through the formal courts on the basis the contract meets certain standards
and it does not prescribe any activities which would contravene the law of England and Wales.
In order to enforce a decision legally it must be reviewed by a legally qualified judge.
The MAT received media attention when evidence was published that indicated that it may
exceed its mandate by arbitrating issues outside of their commercial jurisdiction such as
arrangements for children and domestic violence.1
This review visited the MAT and heard
evidence about its practices and the differences between itself and sharia councils.
The MAT indicated that only 10% of its workload was concerned with family matters; of that
70% was the granting of Islamic divorces. The vast majority of their work is commercial
arbitration. However, the overwhelming majority of people seeking divorce are going to sharia
councils rather than the MAT.

This.

Whether anyone likes it or not this type of roles are necessary. They exist for other faiths too.

Things like marriage. Until the late 1980s/1990s if you got married in anything other than a of E church or a registry office your marriage wasn't legal unless you had a registrar attend to do the written part.

A lot of people had a registry office ceremony the day before their religious one, whether you were RC, Jewish, Muslims, Sikh, Quaker, whatever.

A Muslim marriage is a Nikkah, it is not recognised in English law (not sure about Scotland) so unless you have a registry office wedding or you are in a place licenced for a wedding with a civil registrar.

But if you have a Nikkah in Pakistan then register it in the UK then it is legally recognised, as long as there are only two people in the marriage.

I have no idea about other countries, but this is the kind of thing the job is advertising for someone to take on.

Some people take their faith very seriously and treat the restrictions of their faith as seriously as the law of the land.

Why don't you try checking reality if you think women have it that good?

In Ireland people getting married in a Catholic Church do not need to go to a registry office. Many do not realise that the religious bit is combined with the legal civil bit as that is what is allowed by the state. When you sign the registry (normally in a side room) after the 'I do' bit in the main church you are signing the legal bit. The 'I do' is also part of this. I got married in a civil ceremony in Ireland, at the time very unusual, many at our own wedding were confused as to whether we were actually really married because we didn't get married in church !

This rule also applies to other religions.

There is absolutely no doubt that sharia law is bad for women, and it doesn’t make me or anyone else racist to point that out.

Do you want to be make to cover your hair?

Do you want to receive only 50% of the inheritance your male family members would receieve?

Do you went to be raped by your husband and it be fine?

Do you want to be in a position where it is difficult to divorce your husband, but easy for him to divorce you?

Do you want your testimony to be worth half that of a man’s?

Do you want to be punished for being raped?

I could go on.

Yes the UK law system supercedes, but these ideologies are harmful to women, and just shrugging them off as ‘diversity’ is, I believe, racist in itself because it sees some women as having to accept less rights due to their ethnicity.

shutting down discussions and critiques of Sharia law by labelling dialogue as ‘racism’ and ‘discrimination’ is no different from when critiques of trans ideology were shut down due to ‘transphobia’ and ‘bigotry’

I don’t think i said that women have it that good… I said you should check out women’s own personal testimony. If you would have taken two minutes to read the personal testimonies from women you would understand just how greatly they differ. Do UK courts force women to stay married when they are in a forced, underage marriage? Does UK law deny women inheritance? Force people to stay married when there’s domestic abuse? Does it put women into ‘seclusion’ where they are not allowed to leave their house, not even to enter their garden? Does it tell women it’s not marital rape if they are withholding sex? Does it tell women who are victims of FGM that they’re not meeting their husbands needs and so that is why they were a victim of abuse? Would it then give him custody of all of the children based on that? Would UK law force you to stay in a marriage where your husband is a polygamist?

The Uk law system has its own faults, but you are comparing apples to oranges here.

Forgot to quote you in my last message @PhilippaGeorgiou I’ve quoted it here

Of course anyone giving legal advice should know the law of the country they live in! Where religious teachings are in conflict with the law of the land, eg on women’s rights or child safeguarding, the adviser must not give their clients the impression that it’s ok to break the law.

I pointed out above that Mosques and Imams can like Cof E etc register marriages but most of them don't. The reason can only be that they want Sharia Law on marriage to trump the secular law.

1. By permitting the existence of Sharia councils and other parallel legal systems Britain is failing to meet its obligations to gender equality in marriage and family relations . Article 16 1. of CEDAW on marriage and family relations:

” States parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women: (a) The same right to enter into marriage; (b) The same right freely to choose a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their free and full consent; (c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution; (d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; (e) The same rights to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights; (f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount; (g) The same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation; (h) The same rights for both spouses in respect of the ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, whether free of charge or for a valuable consideration. 2. The betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect, and all necessary action, including legislation, shall be taken to specify a minimum age for marriage and to make the registration of marriages in an official registry compulsory”.It also opens the door to polygamous Muslim marriages. The state may not recognise them but Islam does.

It's entirely reasonable for members of a religion to have experienced people deciding how the rules of that religion apply to individual cases.

Ban sharia councils and I imagine what happens is Muslims start making up their own interpretations of Islamic law ad hoc, which is probably worse for many affected individuals and certainly less fair. They don't all magically shift to following secular western morality instead.

I don't support a lot of things Islam teaches but you don't get anywhere by just banning stuff.

This isn't just a Muslim (or Jewish) thing though what it looks like is different in different contexts. Churches have mechanisms for dealing with people who don't live their lives as expected (admittedly some more developed than others, and many existing more "in principle" than in practice). Most denominations don't generally refer to their rules as "law", although some do (including Anglicanism). Secular organisations, too, will usually have ways of ensuring people live up to certain standards. Your employer has them. Your children's school has them. The Labour party has them. The Football Association has them.

Basically any group of people is going to need ways of regulating the behaviour of that group and once you start trying to interfere with that you are in danger of getting into big trouble.

‘So a Catholic tribunal might require applicants to be Canon lawyers but but legally qualified in UK law.’

There is no such thing as a Catholic ( I presume you mean Roman Catholic ) tribunal. Roman Catholics living in any country are expected by the Church to abide by the laws of that country. The Church gives guidance to the conscience of its members, so it will ‘prohibit’ for example abortion or the remarriage of divorced couples. If a member of the Church decides to do either of these things, the Church has the right to withhold Communion from them, just as any organisation can restrict the access of someone who has not abided by the rules of the Club. ( Think offside and arguing with the REf).

There is no tribunal, because there is nothing to argue about in a legal sense. You obey the laws of the country where you live or are visiting, if you think those laws are morally wrong you can campaign for a secular alteration.

• ‘Purpose:
• Canon law serves to guide the church in its internal affairs, ensuring order, consistency, and adherence to its teachings and traditions. It also plays a role in shaping the moral and spiritual lives of its members.

This is rather different from a parallel system of civil law which is in some cases directly contrary to the Law of the country, for example relating to polygamy and forced marriage.

Some posters are very quick to say the mere suggestion of shariah law in the UK must be racist misinfo.

The truth is more interesting, and at least a few posters have linked to a govt report on it.

If you mean: can shariah law override UK law here, the answer is no. If you mean: will the UK courts enforce decisions reached on shariah principles by a Muslim arbitrator the answer is yes. The parties must have agreed to be bound by the decision though. Similar for Beth Din, etc.

I think it’s fair (not necessarily racist) to see that as a bad thing, if you either think shariah law is especially pernicious or object to church-state blurring in general. Obviously we have church-state blurring in the UK all over, but it’s still reasonable to dislike it.

If you take the religious bit out of it (which usually immediately solves most situations) then what is the difference between a community of muslims wanting to solve their disputes under their own club rules and (for example) your local darts club wanting to solve it's disputes under "club rules" ?

Seriously????
Darts clubs are covered by Equality Act. The difference is in the name. Sharia LAW.

But they're not giving legal advice relating to the law of the country they live in. They are giving advice on the teachings of a religion.

Are you under the impression that all those who give advice about religious teachings need to legally qualified? Or just Muslims?

This is just wrong.

The system of codifying and interpreting and applying the rules in Catholicism is Canon law. Decisions are made by 'judges' sitting in 'Tribunals', and there are differing levels of tribunal depending on the stage of a case and the issue at hand.

Anglicanism has similar judicial sounding terminology around its ecclesiastical system. As does Judaism - the beth din translates as 'House of Judgment', and the Beth Din in London is styled explicitly as the Court of the Chief Rabbi.

Religions referring to their rules as laws, and referring to the structures that apply or interpret their rules in judicial terms, is really common.

So in what way is someone forced to obey sharia law ? You forgot to explain that bit.

This!

In fact, and this is my last comment on this thread because it was set up to do what it has done - there is no such thing as Sharia law. Not anywhere. Not ever. It is not, even in Islam, law. It is Sharia, and it is guidance to living an Islamic life. There is no single interpretation of any part of it - it varies in context and time, and is constantly changed and updated. It can also be abused. As can many things, based in religion or not. Those with their own agendas spouting outrage come in many forms. What they all share is an inability to see anything from any point of view that is not their own, and an unwillingness to recognise that life is rarely made up of absolutes. It is no more up to white entitled posters on here to decide how others should choose to live their lives than it is for the Taliban to do so. Different weapons, but the result is often the same - imposing your narrow-minded will on others because it is best for them.

This is a mere job advert, NOT any kind of suggestion that Shariah law should be implemented in the UK.

I think you'd have to be an absolute gammon to be whipped into hysteria about this. I guess gammons are the intended target audience of the fear-mongering, hysteria-whipping propaganda machine. Rational people of intelligence wouldn't fall into the trap.

My only concern about the advert is the salary. It's not great, especially for an expensive area like Didsbury. I wonder whether the same people who get triggered by prospect of a Sharia law administrator would be equally triggered by, let's say, an administrator employed by a Bet Din (a Jewish law court, also perfectly legal here in the UK - just as they should be)?

Let's ask ourselves whether an advert for an admin worker at a Jewish law Court (yes, they exist in most cities with bug Jewish populations) would generate at much hysteria and push back from the far right as its Muslim equivalent.

Hate bait gets tiresome after a while. Sigh.

Big* not bug

There used to be a TV programme that took different families and talked through the options of how they could and possibly should write their wills.

On was a Muslim couple who had, I think 3 children, one boy and two girls.

They wanted a Sharia compliant will.

As @BlessingKalmly said the wife would inherit less than her son if her husband died. Which sounds crap, but if the son took his share according to sharia he was also responsible for homing, feeding and clothing his mother and sisters potentially for life.

So the will was written that the son had a choice to inherit under sharia and fully support his 'dependents' or he could chose to give that up to let mum inherit.

It was a very interesting programme. It wasn't all about sharia, there was a family where mum and dad of one child were divorced, mum had remarried and had other children. The will was for if the mother died, would the child need to live permanently with her dad or would she stay with her siblings and step dad.

You missed out on being punished for non-marital sex, losing alimony and child custody, being unable to object to your husband choosing a second or third wife or even a temporary wife. Once sharia is embedded in your society, it becomes a shadow system that women are unable to object to because it exists. In secular countries where it is a parallel civil system like in India or Singapore, it is impossible to eradicate.