Islamic court cleared to deal with family and divorce disputes as Government endorses sharia
By Steve Doughty
  Â
Islamic courts will be able to decide how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children. Islamic courts have been cleared to deal with family and divorce disputes.Â
Last week, Britain’s Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith,announced plans for a central database detailing every email sent, website visited, and phone call made within Britain.Â
Sharia tribunals will be able to decide how a Muslim couple divide their money and property and who gets the children.Â
The sole proviso from Jack Straw’s Justice Ministry is that a formal law court must rubber-stamp the ruling.Â
This would be in the form of a two-page form sent to a judge sitting in a family court. The divorcing couple would not need to attend.Â
The decision follows nine months of controversy over the role of tribunals run according to Islamic strictures.Â
In February, Downing Street slapped down the Archbishop of Canterbury when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed ‘unavoidable’.Â
But in July, Lord Phillips, who has since retired as Lord Chief Justice, said sharia principles could be the basis for resolving family and business disputes.Â
Muslim ministers have warned that sharia should not have an official role because it accords unequal status to men and women.Â
Giving more weight to evidence from men could hand them a greater share of property and enhanced custody rights.Â
Lawyers said yesterday that using the secretive family courts to endorse sharia decisions would draw a veil over matters of wide public interest.Â
Critics of the idea said yesterday advancing the role of Islamic tribunals would further marginalise isolated minority communities.Â
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, provoked controversy when he suggested the rise of sharia law seemed ‘unavoidable’
The endorsement of sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior justice minister.Â
She said the councils would still have no jurisdiction in England and that rulings by religious authorities had no legal force.Â
But Miss Prentice added: ‘If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgment in a sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court.Â
‘This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets.’Â
A consent order allows couples to have a ‘clean break’ divorce in which there are no long-term maintenance payments.Â
The orders can be approved only where a couple have negotiated and agreed all aspects of their break-up such as money, debts, property and children. The family court judge must decide whether the agreement is reasonable and ensure no side has been disadvantaged.Â
The great majority of consent orders are approved.Â
Barrister Neil Addison said yesterday: ‘If the system works, the judge will not allow an agreement where there has been pressure on one party. He allows a consent order only if the agreement seems reasonable.Â
‘However most mediation of disputes takes place in private and agreements are approved in open court. This is different - the original sharia law is secret and so is the judgment.’Â
Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think-tank, said: ‘The problem with the Government’s attitude is the big question over how far submission to sharia courts is voluntary among Muslim women.Â
‘Women who live in some communities may have no option but to go to the sharia court. The case is then rubber-stamped by a family court without any of us knowing how the decision was reached.’Â
Islamic tribunals have authority to make decisions in business and financial disputes where both parties agree to accept arbitration.Â
Five sharia courts operate mediation systems under the Arbitration Act of 1996.Â
But financial disputes are less controversial because they are much less likely to raise problems over the status of women.
I would have no objection to sharia law if they would at the same time allow the old ecclesiastic law to return. This will be a fair and balanced solution. If the sharia law found a man not guilty of murder because the victim was an apostate, the ecclesiastic law could take him and burn him at the stake for being a heathen. I wrote this in jest, but on reflection, it is an extremely valid argument against sharia, in fact it is the most reasonable one I have yet heard, even if I did pen it myself. Please disseminate.
The Brits have opened a Pandora’s Box with this decision. Now any group can follow their own laws-hell, a person can now make up laws specific to himself and not acknowledge any other. Give it time-the most aggressive group (currently Koranists) will eventually impose its law upon all others. The Islamaniacs have obtained a major concession usually not granted except after a military defeat.
They are changing laws. It won’t be long before they seek to change times, as “2008” won’t
be inclusive for the multi-culti purists. From memory, Cambodia / Kampuchea started at
Year 1 or year 0, and the bloody killing fields resulted.
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/01/eleven-reasons-to-reject-sharia-in-any.html
I do hope that the Brits have done their home work and not just pandering to the fact that as a nation that needs to trade, it will dance with the devil to do business and suck up to the arab money men.
There is no such thing as moderate Islamists. They classify those who are apostates, and those who dont follow the Sunna as being extremists, and by this definition they see OBL as as a moderate. ie their use of the word moderate is quite different to the way others in the wider world use it.
Alos never ever forget that Taqiyya, or lieing of it benefits the religion, is an establsihed practice in ALL forms of Islam.
This acceptance of a limited form of sharia is a wedge which the Brits will come to rue.
Jihad if they want it mullahf**kers . . . . kick all religion into touch . . . those who wish to believe in the fairy tales of the uneducated and mentally sub normal who need these outmoded beliefs to cope with real life need sorting out. I would stand and fight for the rational . . . . fight to the death if needs be to rid the world of scumbag politicians and ALL religious followers just to protect our future generations. . . . . I want my country back!!!!!
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:
Number of States won by: Democrats:19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats:127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.
If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.