I’m not sure that’s not a myth. Can Muslim men REALLY do this without recourse to any kind of administrative process? DO Muslim women REALLY get left with absolutely nothing?[/quote]
Don’t be so surprised. Not only can Muslim men divorce their wives this way, they don’t even have to say the words to her face.
They can just send her a text message.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3100143.stm
out-law.com/page-1763
I’m not sure that’s not a myth. Can Muslim men REALLY do this without recourse to any kind of administrative process? DO Muslim women REALLY get left with absolutely nothing?[/quote]There’s widespread disagreement on this practice among Sunnis, apparently. Shi’as don’t do it at all. And it’s illegal in many Muslim countries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_talaq
Don’t be so surprised. Not only can Muslim men divorce their wives this way, they don’t even have to say the words to her face.
They can just send her a text message.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3100143.stm
out-law.com/page-1763[/quote]
So how does that work in a case where both parties have to agree for sharia to be effective, as is the case in Britain?
Can people now get hitched there only by sharia? Or do they still have to go through some kind of British marriage thing for it to be recognized by the government? In which case, sharia or not, they’d presumably have to still go through some kind of divorce proceeding to get it annulled.
Complicated for sure.
[quote=“sandman”]So how does that work in a case where both parties have to agree for sharia to be effective, as is the case in Britain?
Can people now get hitched there only by sharia? Or do they still have to go through some kind of British marriage thing for it to be recognized by the government? In which case, sharia or not, they’d presumably have to still go through some kind of divorce proceeding to get it annulled.
Complicated for sure.[/quote]Muslim marriages are often not recognized under UK law, and they must get married in the UK or be treated as cohabitees. A Muslim “talaq” divorce is not recognized under UK law, and the law of several Muslim countries.
A google of “talaq” should tell you all you need to know.
As far as I can tell these “Sharia Courts” in the OP don’t have any legal power, they just help people come to agreements, that can be held legal binding in proper courts if all the parties previously agree that anything decided is legally binding.
[quote=“Big Fluffy Matthew”][quote=“sandman”]So how does that work in a case where both parties have to agree for sharia to be effective, as is the case in Britain?
Can people now get hitched there only by sharia? Or do they still have to go through some kind of British marriage thing for it to be recognized by the government? In which case, sharia or not, they’d presumably have to still go through some kind of divorce proceeding to get it annulled.
Complicated for sure.[/quote]Muslim marriages are often not recognized under UK law, and they must get married in the UK or be treated as cohabitees. A Muslim “talaq” divorce is not recognized under UK law, and the law of several Muslim countries.
A google of “talaq” should tell you all you need to know.
As far as I can tell these “Sharia Courts” in the OP don’t have any legal power, they just help people come to agreements, that can be held legal binding in proper courts if all the parties previously agree that anything decided is legally binding.[/quote]
Yeas, that sounds a lot more likely.
Because that’s not recognised under civil law in Britain.[/quote]
It would be if the sharia court says men have such a right. What part of the rulings of these “arbitration tribunals” being binding into law and are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system don’t you not understand?[/quote]
This part, apparently- from that crazy left-wing Muslim loving source,the Telegraph:
[quote] And a sharia court in Britain has no power to grant a divorce that is valid in English law.
Divorce is a matter of personal status. There is a fundamental difference between questions of status — which are for the state to decide — and disputes between individuals, which they may resolve as they wish.
If individuals or companies are unable to settle their differences and do not wish to begin legal proceedings, they can agree to have their disputes resolved by an arbitrator, a sort of private judge.
Unless there are procedural irregularities, the arbitrator’s decision — known as an award — will be enforced in the same way as a court ruling.
Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 says “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”.
It follows that a dispute may be resolved by a sharia court, provided that the parties agree and that its procedures are fair. But this does not give sharia courts the power to resolve questions of personal status.
All this is made perfectly clear by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, the body referred to in the newspaper report. The tribunal, which was established in 2007, says it operates “within the legal framework of England and Wales”. When sitting, it must have at least two members, one a scholar of Islamic sacred law and the other a solicitor or barrister registered to practise in England and Wales.
The tribunal’s website explains in detail how it conducts arbitrations in cases or debt and other civil disputes and the status of awards under the Arbitration Act.
Turning to matrimonial disputes, the website deals first with the problem of “limping marriages”. A woman, it explains, can “get a divorce in the civil courts but her husband may continue to deny her the religious divorce. As a result she may feel unable to re-marry because the community still regard her as being married”.
The same problem can arise under Jewish law, where the woman is known as an agunah —meaning “chained” or “anchored” wife.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal says that many scholars consider that the Islamic marriage terminates along with the divorce in the civil courts. But, presumably for those who do not accept such a pragmatic approach, the tribunal, “along with other religious organisations in the UK, can grant a talaq to finish the limping marriage”.
It is entirely clear from this account that Muslims living in Britain must go to the ordinary civil courts if they wish to be divorced. The tribunal is not claiming any power to grant a divorce that would be recognised by the civil courts.
This important distinction is maintained when dealing with forced marriages. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 gives new powers to the civil courts. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal promises to make an “Islamic decision quickly and cheaply” but accepts that its status in English law will be no more than “evidence before the civil court”.
On criminal matters, the law of England and Wales remains binding. “The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK,” it says. However, in cases of domestic violence where the tribunal has helped to bring about a “reconciliation” between the spouses, that information may be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service — which may reconsider criminal charges. “Note that the final decision to prosecute always remains with the CPS,” the tribunal stresses.
Finally, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal acknowledges that it cannot make decisions in inheritance disputes that will be enforced under English law. If one party to a ruling by the tribunal chooses not to comply with it, the best that the other party can do is to “attempt to place the judgment of [the tribunal] before the civil court as evidence of what the deceased would have known and intended”.
[/quote]
Does this mean those muslim courts cannot order adulterers be stoned to death, as per the sharia law? What a downer.
[quote=“MikeN”]“Why are you dragging this into the public courts where outsiders will use it to mock our traditions? Settle it in the community, or we will be shamed.”
Arbitration is too easily used as a weapon against the powerless.[/quote]
Quite. Rational people are not going to “fully consent” to placing themselves in a weak negotiating positions, which is exactly what happens to women in Islamic courts.
Take a look here and click the video on the front page for what many people are really thinking in a liberal fascist ban christmas trees world bollocks.
The video continually plays his updates…
If easily offended don’t bother.
This isn’t good.
Ang San Suu Chyi, who is resisting military rule in Myanmar said that people did not resist Western Empires to get a different set of human rights but to get the same rights that Europeans had. Are human rights universal or subject to the ancient codes of peoples who lived in times that thought their laws should come from the arbitrary decisions of this tribe’s god or that tribe’s god?
In the West we try to deal fairly with individuals. In thisese courts they won’t be concerned with fairness but what the ‘tradition’ says, traditions or books that come from a time where social, religious and economic ways were very different. So as we have seen already,these women, instead of getting fair equal shares, have now ended up with much less.And now that sharia is accepted there will be a gradual push to try to extend it.
This is in my opinion a very retrograde step. As for Jewish courts I must admit I never heard of them before. The same argument applies to them.
Scarcely had I made the previous posting when I found this on the Internet.
From the Scotsman newspaper:
news.scotsman.com/scotland/Shari … 4573444.jp
[quote]SECRET talks are under way to bring Islamic sharia law courts to Scotland, The Scotsman has learned.
Qamar Bhatti, director of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), which runs the courts, admitted discussions were taking place with lawyers and Muslim community groups in Scotland.
The group is believed to be aiming to set up courts in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
In September it emerged that five sharia courts, ruling on civil cases from divorce to domestic violence and financial disputes, had been operating for more than a year in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and at MAT headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.
The courts have legal powers, with their decisions enforceable through the county courts or high courts.
However, concerns have been raised about the establishment of a “dual legal system”.
Women’s domestic violence groups have also voiced fears, saying traditional sharia law arbitration is “dangerous and inappropriate” in cases of abuse.[/quote]
I’ve rarely been vindicated so quickly.
I also note that such courts have been banned in Ontario. I think the British might be well advised to follow the lead of the Canadians. Seriously.
What’s funny is watching Western liberals advocate the rise of conservative religious courts in Western countries. 
Damn right.
And the argument that everyone has to consent to these tribunals is bunk too. We’re talking about communities where women need to run away to escape forced marriages and have in some cases been killed in so called honour killings.
Funny how Fundamentalist Christians are a threat to womens’ rights but Muslims and Jews aren’t. Oh right, that’s because they are minorities and it would be rude of us to impose our ideas on them. Still I’m sure in 50 year’s time when the Muslims are no longer a minority in some Western countries they’ll feel just the same way and won’t try to impose their ideas on anyone else.
[quote=“KingZog”]Still I’m sure in 50 year’s time when the Muslims are no longer a minority in some Western countries they’ll feel just the same way and won’t try to impose their ideas on anyone else.[/quote]Which Western countries?
If you wait long enough, someone on here will excuse honor killings as “insignificant,” despite the mountain of evidence collected by Human Rights Watch, National Geographic, and Amnesty International that thousands of honor killings occur every year and are supported by the communities in which they occur. This discussion has taken place before. My argument fell on deaf ears, because so many Western liberals believe things like…
What you say with irony they say with conviction.
I was going to say France. But the largest plausible estimates I’ve found is for France to still not have an Muslim majority. Mind you a 20-30% Muslim country might be a lot less socially liberal than a 0-10% Muslim one. Plausibly that change could tip the political centre of gravity away from liberal ideas like women and gay rights and toward illiberal ones. And of course unelected Muslim ‘community leaders’ might be able to get their own Shariah courts too and impose an even less liberal regime on their communities.
And let’s face it, a child born to Muslim parents in an area where Muslims are in a majority doesn’t have much choice about whether she is a Muslim or not, whether Muslims are 10% of the population or 30%. And she’s very unlikely to hear anything positive about secular courts, even though those courts may in fact offer her more rights.
Still, I suppose to some of the people here posting that’s all fine and dandy. Still it makes you wonder what would happen if that Christian cult leader we talked about earlier had managed to persuade the British state that he could run his own courts and punish his undereage harem members for escaping or defying his orders and have those judgements backed up by the real law. Maybe if he had brown skin rather than white, it would all be ok.
[quote=“sandman”]Three daughters and two sons. How strange. I wonder why the women didn’t simply refuse to allow the sharia court to rule on the claim? You can be very very sure that their lawyer or social workers would have made it clear what they were getting themselves into.
If they decided to go the sharia route – which they were in NO WAY obliged to do – they must have known what would happen. :loco:
Sharia is only used in Britain if BOTH parties agree, and only for civil cases. In the absence of such agreement, English or Scots law is used as the basis for any rulings.
If sharia is used, its with the full consent of both sides.[/quote]
Thanks for that enlightenment. I’m probably moving to BirMINGERham in a few months and clears up one predjudice!
Damn right.
And the argument that everyone has to consent to these tribunals is bunk too. We’re talking about communities where women need to run away to escape forced marriages and have in some cases been killed in so called honour killings.
Funny how Fundamentalist Christians are a threat to womens’ rights but Muslims and Jews aren’t. Oh right, that’s because they are minorities and it would be rude of us to impose our ideas on them. Still I’m sure in 50 year’s time when the Muslims are no longer a minority in some Western countries they’ll feel just the same way and won’t try to impose their ideas on anyone else.[/quote]
Roasting 