Sharia already in Britain

[joegrundman]

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

I'm a little bit shocked to hear this

[Skybird]

The moment a country and it'S legislation gives part of legislation out of hand, it has signed it'S self-deconstruction sentence. The "precedent" of Jewish courts already being allowed, does not work - as one reader there correctly pointed out, they exclusively decide internal issues of Jewish religion, not on issues touching the nation's statute books, crime laws etc.

Damn Islam.

But since we all comply with these developements voluntarily and for reasons of suffering from brain cancer and without anybody having held a gun at our head (at least 40 years earlier when we started this, unneeded, unwanted and unasked - today it is a bit different with being exposed to threats of violence), we have no right to complain. We just get what we asked for. And when these things play no role at elections, so that the same people advocating these develoepements get confirmed in office time and again, we deserve it not any better indeed.

But frustrating it is to see the evil unfolding - unopposed, but getting embraced.

[Letum]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there.

[Skybird]

Skybird, who is "we" ? You're not British I think, and this ruling has no effect on German law. Damn islam as much as you want, but blaming a religion for trying to get more control is like blaming people for breathing. I'm affraid the only thing to blame is Britain law and the politicians who passed it, and I'm guessing none of them is neither jew nor muslim. By the way, even though it seems to be at a different level, the jewish court precedent is a fact, in my book divorce and business dispute fall under a country's law, these are not religious matters especially the latter. If the law is inept enough to not define limits to what can be ruled in religious courts and what can't be then it's again the fault of the politicians who wrote that law. Religious court in a laic country is a nonsense anyway no matter what they're allowed to judge.

I say "we" because the Brits are just forerunners in what is being imposed on us all in Europe as well. Also, via the EU, British (or British-Islamic) calls are made an object for the whole EU to be copied.

And I damn islam for doing that, and doing that not in violation but in explicit obedíence to it'S religious demand to subjugate everything that is not itself. And for that intention I damn it, like I would and do damn every other dogma or ideology making totalitarian demands to rule over all the world.

And as I said, and as one reader on the site already said, it is wrong to compare this issue to Jewish arbitration courts (if that is what you call them in English), for in case of the Jewish courts these do not interfere with criminal laws and the general statute books of a nation, while in Britian the article says they plan and already do that, see the comment on the police cooperating with them and bringing muslim criminals to their courts instead to that of the nation. Violence in marriages, like they are decided by the Islamic courts, also should not be left to internal rlegious ruling, since this otuches our Wetsern constitutional core values that protect the equality of man and woman and do noit leave at home to relgious habits. Their habits have to chnage immediately to reflect total obedience to wetsern constitutional values, or they should pack their things and leave - also immediately. Islam has no right whatever to deand Wetsern cultures and constitutions and morals to chnage so that they comply with islamic demands. If they do not like that - I certainly do not stop them from moving back to where they came. we do not win anything from Islam's presence in our societies. It is not to the enrichment of our culture, but to our loss.

We have such "courts" in Germany as well, but here they are seen and described as mediators. Whatever they are, they are pushing with strong determination and with support by radical orthodox organisations to be recognized as the decisive institutions without whom no mediation between the law enforcment and musloim offenders and criminals shoiuld even be allowed to take place. That is ridiculous. It is also to be said that the local "judges" or "mediators" of this kind often represent orthodox, fundamentalistic or nationalistic turkish organisations and raise a culture of corruption and bribery in the Muslim parallel society, abusing the german tolerance for personal narcisissm and to push orthodox and fundamental agendas into the legal culture of Germany.

It is noit just Britain. And not just Germany. Wether you like it or not, Islam will never be satsified, and always demand more, until all is it'S own. that is the arch-islamic demand founded and anchored in it's theological self-definition. total and undisputed global domination - this and nothing else is Muhammad's call.

And i should not condemn it for being like that...?

[Happy Times]

This economic collapse will kill political correctness, something good.

[Skybird]

This economic collapse will kill political correctness, something good.
and the call for more cheap labour will open the gates of europe even more, so that demands to foreigners to comply with european home cultures will be lowered even more. The economy has been one of the greatest defenders of Muslim colonisation in Europe!

[Happy Times]

This economic collapse will kill political correctness, something good.
and the call for more cheap labour will open the gates of europe even more, so that demands to foreigners to comply with european home cultures will be lowered even more. The economy has been one of the greatest defenders of Muslim colonisation in Europe!

You think we have need for more cheap labour after this? The illegals are the first to be kicked out, laws will be created to kick those not complying to the culture. The public pressure will be massive. Want to bet? :)

[Skybird]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there.

I'm just quoting it 'cause it seems it's been overlooked :)

Skybird, you're merely blaming islam for being a religion. I don't expect religions to behave themselves, I expect my government to stand strong when the religious stuff tries to mix in my country's institutions, and on that matter I really like my country.

I think I have made my uncompromising position on religion in general and Islam in special clear on this board, and beyond the smallest of doubt.

[Skybird]

This economic collapse will kill political correctness, something good.
and the call for more cheap labour will open the gates of europe even more, so that demands to foreigners to comply with european home cultures will be lowered even more. The economy has been one of the greatest defenders of Muslim colonisation in Europe!

You think we have need for more cheap labour after this? The illegals are the first to be kicked out, laws will be created to kick those not complying to the culture. The public pressure will be massive. Want to bet? :)

Foreigners are the ones to accept bad woring conditions or dirty work at low wages - not the local residents living in the country since long. I bet that is the same in germany and the rest of Europe as well. It's been like that since decades, since WWII. And probably you see similiar patterns in past centuries, also reaching as far as to habits of systematic discrimination over social status, ethinic origin - or religious background.

[Happy Times]

This economic collapse will kill political correctness, something good.
and the call for more cheap labour will open the gates of europe even more, so that demands to foreigners to comply with european home cultures will be lowered even more. The economy has been one of the greatest defenders of Muslim colonisation in Europe!

You think we have need for more cheap labour after this? The illegals are the first to be kicked out, laws will be created to kick those not complying to the culture. The public pressure will be massive. Want to bet? :)

Foreigners are the ones to accept bad woring conditions or dirty work at low wages - not the local residents living in the country since long. I bet that is the same in germany and the rest of Europe as well.

That was before, there will be mass unembloyment.

[Skybird]

hm. We need to wait and see. Different to what usually is said, employers love high unemployment. It gives them more power over employees and helps to reduce the wages as long as the state does not intervene and makes them paying compensation in form of changed tax patterns.

[UnderseaLcpl]

W........T........F..........??????

What the hell are the Brits thinking!? Is there no seperation of church and state!? Why not have Christian courts and Buddhist courts and Scientologist courts!? Why have a court system at all!!!? Where is STEED and why isn't he ranting about this right now!?

I swear to all that I hold dear, if they ever do something like this in the states I'm going to revolt.:down: :damn:

[mrbeast]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there.

Agreed, these courts are only legally binding if both parties agree to it, this is a non-story; just an opportunity to snipe at muslims and let the doomsayers have a good moan about how Islam is taking over Europe etc etc.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there.

Agreed, these courts are only legally binding if both parties agree to it, this is a non-story; just an opportunity to snipe at muslims and let the doomsayers have a good moan about how Islam is taking over Europe etc etc.

I think it is a story because it subverts the authority of the state. Whether or not both parties agree is irrelevant. The nature of the case is irrelevant.

If there can be seperate courts for Islam, or Catholicism, or Oprah fans, or whatever, it creates a seperate system of justice, even if it is only in civil court.
That is inequitable and against the spirit of good government.

Furthermore, it propagates divisiveness in culture.

If Britain wants to pursue leftist policies like this, fine. There's a reason that the sun will set on the British Empire at precisely 7:07 pm GMT today.

[mrbeast]

W........T........F..........??????

What the hell are the Brits thinking!? Is there no seperation of church and state!? Why not have Christian courts and Buddhist courts and Scientologist courts!? Why have a court system at all!!!? Where is STEED and why isn't he ranting about this right now!?

I swear to all that I hold dear, if they ever do something like this in the states I'm going to revolt.:down: :damn:

Technically the UK only has a partial seperation of church and state. The Queen is not only the head of state but also the head of the Church of England. There is also only partial seperation of the judiciary and the government through the office of lord chancellor, although this has been modified in the last few years somewhat, not too sure what the situation is though. State run schools also have Church of England prayer and religeous assembly, but this is not rigidly enforced and in most schools its merely a formality (in my secondary school it happened once in a blue moon) Children can opt out if their parents object; this is somewhat different from a church run school or Catholic school.

In practice though, a speration of sorts works by convention, though, as with many things in the British state the potenial remains, its never taken advantage of.

[mrbeast]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there.

Agreed, these courts are only legally binding if both parties agree to it, this is a non-story; just an opportunity to snipe at muslims and let the doomsayers have a good moan about how Islam is taking over Europe etc etc.

I think it is a story because it subverts the authority of the state. Whether or not both parties agree is irrelevant. The nature of the case is irrelevant.

If there can be seperate courts for Islam, or Catholicism, or Oprah fans, or whatever, it creates a seperate system of justice, even if it is only in civil court.
That is inequitable and against the spirit of good government.

Furthermore, it propagates divisiveness in culture.

If Britain wants to pursue leftist policies like this, fine. There's a reason that the sun will set on the British Empire at precisely 7:07 pm GMT today.

It does not subvert the authority of the state as it is the authority of the state operating through these courts.

These courts operate as arbitrators and are only legally binding if both parties agree, that is very relavent, as it means nobody can be forced to go through this court system or abide by its decisions, unless they consent to it.

There have been Jewish courts operating under the same principle for over 100 years, with no ill effects.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Technically the UK only has a partial seperation of church and state. The Queen is not only the head of state but also the head of the Church of England. There is also only partial seperation of the judiciary and the government through the office of lord chancellor, although this has been modified in the last few years somewhat, not too sure what the situation is though. State run schools also have Church of England prayer and religeous assembly, but this is not rigidly enforced and in most schools its merely a formality (in my secondary school it happened once in a blue moon) Children can opt out if their parents object; this is somewhat different from a church run school or Catholic school.

In practice though, a speration of sorts works by convention, though, as with many things in the British state the potenial remains, its never taken advantage of.


Thank you for the explanation. :up:

Still, I'm concerned. What if someone does take advantage of the potential to get church into the state? I'd prefer to eliminate the possibility altogether and strictly prohibit the state from endorsing or prosecuting any religion.

The U.S. is not immune to religion seeping into state affairs, but I think it is a lot less susceptible because of American ideologies. Thank God for the nutjobs that endlessly debate whether or not prayer in school should be allowed, and the ones that condemn the Pledge of Allegiance because the word "God" is in it. No system is perfect (not even mine, I slipped a "Thank God" in there) but simply allowing the church to have anything to do with the state invites complications upon a state, and in the worst case, theocracy.

[1480]

UsLc: Most of our labor issues are governed by third party arbitration. Not too much difference, but I do agree with you in principal and even SB, yikes.....:o

[mrbeast]

Thank you for the explanation. :up:

Still, I'm concerned. What if someone does take advantage of the potential to get church into the state? I'd prefer to eliminate the possibility altogether and strictly prohibit the state from endorsing or prosecuting any religion.

The U.S. is not immune to religion seeping into state affairs, but I think it is a lot less susceptible because of American ideologies. Thank God for the nutjobs that endlessly debate whether or not prayer in school should be allowed, and the ones that condemn the Pledge of Allegiance because the word "God" is in it. No system is perfect (not even mine, I slipped a "Thank God" in there) but simply allowing the church to have anything to do with the state invites complications upon a state, and in the worst case, theocracy.

It's an anomally in a modern democracy and I think we are moving slowly towards a separation, but like so many things in the British state, its very very complex; a result of several hundred years of slow evolution. Its one of those things that on paper shoudn't work but in practice, somehow manages to. Take prayer in state schools for example, you would think it might have the effect of indoctrinating children to be christians; yet the UK has one of the most secular societies in the western world!

[Skybird]

W........T........F..........??????

What the hell are the Brits thinking!? Is there no seperation of church and state!? Why not have Christian courts and Buddhist courts and Scientologist courts!? Why have a court system at all!!!? Where is STEED and why isn't he ranting about this right now!?

I swear to all that I hold dear, if they ever do something like this in the states I'm going to revolt.:down: :damn:

Islam knows no secularism, and does not accept it - something that many Westerners stubbornly ignore. In principle, Islam is totally intolerant to everything that is not itself - this is where it'S brute force and energetic drive to expand at all costs, by all means, derives from. It simply does not accept that principle for itself, nor recognizes it in others - it just abuses it for its own purposes if it meets it in others, and kills it once it is on full control. Secularism and democracy are only trains it temporarily boiards to gain legitimation that cannot be attacked by democracies, and winning in power - and then it leaves that train behind at burns it, turning into the totalitarian monoculture that the Quran as a whole demands.

This is what makes our constitutions so very vulnerable to Islam, because they base on the separation of church and state, and grant - basing on that principle - the freedom to practice religion freely. Islam claims exactly that right for religious freedom - and in fact pushes it's political agenda of Islamisation against the constitution allowing it that freedom, because it does not separate between religion and freedom. That way policies get protected by the guarantee of free religion, and thus are almost forbidden to be questioned, critizised or attacked that way. Afterwards only that freedom is accepted anymore that does not question the overruling superiority of Islamic definition of freedom (and that is the absence of anything non- or anti-islamic). You can't just feed only your finger or just your hand or just your arm - in all three cases it ends with your whole body being eaten. the mistake of yours already begins when you raise a hand to make a friendly wavering gesture.

As a criticil Benedictinian monk here in Germany just had said:

"The Christian says to the Muslim: 'We allow you to build mosques in the West, and then you allow us to build as many chruches in your countries' Replies the Muslim: 'No, we build mosques in your countries, and you are not allowed to build any churches in our country.' That is our religion."

That is the law and rule of Islam: no multiculturalism that is no discrimination in reality. No peaceful coexistence that is no preparation for later subjugation. No cease-fire that is no preparation for latter continuation of conquest. No peace as long as there is something left that is not Islamic. that is no crazy idea by some fundamental terrorists - that is Islam's core and essence, based in the Quran itself. and the Quranic Islam is the only there is that qualifies for that label. Evertyhing else is just western intellectual inventions and self-induced fantasies. Like islam does not recognize the concept of secularism, most westerners do not understand the originally fundamentalistic nature of islam. Non-fundamentalism in islam is not the rule, but is the departure from the Quran.

[Letum]

If Britain wants to pursue leftist policies like this, fine. There's a reason that the sun will set on the British Empire at precisely 7:07 pm GMT today.
You are wrong.
The sun will not set on the British soil today.

At 1907 GMT the sun will set in London.
It will still be sunny in the British Isles until 1959 GMT when the sun sets on the
West of Northern Ireland.
However, by that time it is still daylight in the Falklands, and it will be until 2300
GMT. A hour and 23 minuets later the Cayman Islands will follow the Falklands in
to night at 0012. The day at Greenwich is over, however daylight on British soil is
not as the Pitcairn Isles will have seen the sun since 1336 and will continue to do
so until twilight at 0317. That is almost three hours after the sun rises on the British
Indian Ocean Territory at 0016 where it will not vanish from view until 1351 GMT.
By this time I may be drinking tea in the sun in Yorkshire UK. In British Sovereign
Cyprus it will still be a little too early for the mid-day meal.

The sun will not set on the British soil today and I rather doubt it will at all this
year.

[mrbeast]

If Britain wants to pursue leftist policies like this, fine. There's a reason that the sun will set on the British Empire at precisely 7:07 pm GMT today.
You are wrong.
The sun will not set on the British soil today.

At 1907 GMT the sun will set in London.
It will still be sunny in the British Isles until 1959 GMT when the sun sets on the
West of Northern Ireland.
However, by that time it is still daylight in the Falklands, and it will be until 2300
GMT. A hour and 23 minuets later the Cayman Islands will follow the Falklands in
to night at 0012. The day at Greenwich is over, however daylight on British soil is
not as the Pitcairn Isles will have seen the sun since 1336 and will continue to do
so until twilight at 0317. That is almost three hours after the sun rises on the British
Indian Ocean Territory at 0016 where it will not vanish from view until 1351 GMT.
By this time I may be drinking tea in the sun in Yorkshire UK. In British Sovereign
Cyprus it will still be a little too early for the mid-day meal.

The sun will not set on the British soil today and I rather doubt it will at all this
year.

This Post to be followed by all 6 verses of Rule Britannia! :lol:

[Dan D]

Dear Americans friends,
I don't know how to tell you this but American courts enforce Sharia law as well, Texan courts even:

„Sharia already in Texas“, so to speak
http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=14601
The parties entered into a contract that provided for Sharia arbitration; the court considered challenges to the arbitral process, and upheld the awards.
via
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml#1202454061
with comment:
„And of course the application of Sharia law was indeed a perfectly normal matter. American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.“ http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml#1202454061

Despite the tensions between Islamic rules and Western convictions, Islamic law is generally applicable on certain levels in all Western countries and enforced by all Western courts. The rules of International Private Law may lead to the result that the foreign law of an Islamic country is applicable. The freedom of contract as a basic principle of private law allows you to agree upon the application of Islamic law within the limits of the public order.

The Brits have proven to be smart political minds for some centuries now. I don't fear for them. Who knows, may be some day some Islamic states will adopt English influenced Sharia Law.
The American legal system is based on the English law school despite the fact, that Americans and the English Crown were enemies at a time, to draw a questionable historical analogy here.

[Skybird]

Who knows, may be some day some Islamic states will adopt English influenced Sharia Law.

:rotfl:

And maybe they will give up the Quran and start believing the bible.

Just give it more time. :up:


The sharia is not a legal code of the intention as Western codes are. It is meant as a (sanctionising) tool to keep the believer on the path of right believing. It cannot be seen outside a deeply religious context. To hope that there could be a secular influenced version of sharia copied by Muslim cnation is really a climax of absurd thinking, like this ridiculous idea of a EU-generated Euro- Islam is. You could as well try to imagine the four gospels without the sermon on the mountain, or imagine how to live in peaceful coexistence with a liberal, democratic Third Reich.

As for the British cleverness, I think that in recent decades they have started to outsmart themselves. Maybe they were so overly convinced of their civilizational superiority that they started to think that even if they do not actively defend Britain anymore, enemies of theirs would freeze in reverance when hearing the sound of the words "Great Britain". But for Islam, these two words have another translation, and mean only "Fat Prey".

[Hitman]

It is fair to point out that the headline is distorting the reality that lies behind.

Arbitration is allowed in all countries for many different legal areas, the fact that islamic courts are using it to back up their decissions with the possibility of executing them is in my opinion better than acting mafia-style and staying entirely out of the system. I don't know how it works in Britain, but here in Spain for example the Judge whom the arbitration decission is presented for execution can and must control the legality of it and that it does not go against our constitution. Otherwise he declares it ilegal and without any legitimate force.

Saying that there are islamic courts being officially set up in Britain is far from the reality in terms of what you can read in the article. In fact, homosexual couples can make a civil contract to share their incomings and properties as long as they stay together, and submit to an arbitration decission in case of parting away, and that would not mean that homosexual marriage has become legal in the UK :hmm:

[Platapus]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there.


Exactly! Appearing at the Islamic arbitration courts is voluntary. The way the article was written it gives the impression that there is a separate court system just for Islamic law when all that it is, is a voluntary arbitration court.

Sounds like some anti-Muslim propaganda to me. :nope:

[Platapus]

I swear to all that I hold dear, if they ever do something like this in the states I'm going to revolt.:down: :damn:

Well you better start revolting as the United States has recognized arbiration courts since 1925.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

This really is nothing to get your undies in a twist about. Arbitration is a valid way of handling disagreements.

No conspiracy. In the case of the original poster a voluntary arbitration tribunal has been formed to arbitrate according to religious teachings. This is hardly a unique organization.

Here is a christian arbitration group

http://www.bluestratus.net/servlets/DocumentDownloadHandler/234516/37116/115992/Faith-Based%20General%20Med%20Arb%20Clauses.pdf

This organization advises people on how to put religious conditions on contracts. Don't hear anyone screaming about this one though.

P'SHARA Jewish Dispute Resolution, Inc. is a jewish arbitration organization. Anyone complaining about that one? Did not think so.

But at the mention of Islam, people get suddenly so concerned. I wonder why?

[Sailor Steve]

Dear Americans friends,
I don't know how to tell you this but American courts enforce Sharia law as well, Texan courts even...
Now that you mention it, what the heck does everybody think Judge Judy is? I think as long as it's voluntary, there's no problem.

[Platapus]

Now that you mention it, what the heck does everybody think Judge Judy is? I think as long as it's voluntary, there's no problem.

Normally it is, but when the dreaded word "Islam" is added to it, it suddenly becomes a concern to some people.

Because, after all, you "know" how them Muslims are :yep:

The original article was just a propaganda piece to get people stirred up. :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

The original article was just a propaganda piece to get people stirred up. :nope:
And it seems to have worked.

[Platapus]

The original article was just a propaganda piece to get people stirred up. :nope:
And it seems to have worked.

No one ever said that propaganda was not effective with the people. :up:

[Happy Times]

But at the mention of Islam, people get suddenly so concerned. I wonder why?

I dont, its not like the threat to our culture is imaginary.

[joegrundman]

Although I'm British, I haven't actually lived in the UK since 2003, so when I stumbled on this article i was surprised.

In a rare event, a subsim GT discussion has provided illumination and a sense of perspective

thanks very much:D

joe

[Platapus]

But at the mention of Islam, people get suddenly so concerned. I wonder why?

I dont, its not like the threat to our culture is imaginary.

But the threat is not by Muslims though. The threat to our society are criminals who happen to be Muslim.

You might want to check your logic there.

Even if the case can be made that terrorists are Muslims, that does not mean that Muslims are terrorists.

There are significantly more Muslims who mean us no harm than there are Muslims intending to do us harm.

[Letum]

But at the mention of Islam, people get suddenly so concerned. I wonder why?
I dont, its not like the threat to our culture is imaginary.

Threat to culture?

The biggest threat to traditional English culture is the lack of morris dancers and
the preference the young have for coffee and hamburgers over tea and scones.

[SUBMAN1]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there. < Letum buries head in sand....Tries to justify it and fails....>

-S

[Foxtrot]

can a burglar sue the owner of house if he is injured/trapped during his "job"?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Dear Americans friends,
I don't know how to tell you this but American courts enforce Sharia law as well, Texan courts even:

„Sharia already in Texas“, so to speak
http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us...pinionID=14601 (http://www.2ndcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=14601)
The parties entered into a contract that provided for Sharia arbitration; the court considered challenges to the arbitral process, and upheld the awards.
via
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1202454061 (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml#1202454061)
with comment:
„And of course the application of Sharia law was indeed a perfectly normal matter. American courts are governed by American law, but American law has long provided that parties to contracts can provide for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (such as arbitration). American law has likewise long provided that some contractual disputes would be resolved with reference to foreign law, especially when the law is expressly provided for by the contract. It doesn't matter whether the arbitration or the foreign law is secular or religious -- secular and religious rules are treated basically equally, on the principle that the parties' contractual choices should be honored unless some extraordinary circumstance makes it unfair to do so.“ http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1202454061 (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.shtml#1202454061)

Despite the tensions between Islamic rules and Western convictions, Islamic law is generally applicable on certain levels in all Western countries and enforced by all Western courts. The rules of International Private Law may lead to the result that the foreign law of an Islamic country is applicable. The freedom of contract as a basic principle of private law allows you to agree upon the application of Islamic law within the limits of the public order.


Well you better start revolting as the United States has recognized arbiration courts since 1925.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

This really is nothing to get your undies in a twist about. Arbitration is a valid way of handling disagreements.

No conspiracy. In the case of the original poster a voluntary arbitration tribunal has been formed to arbitrate according to religious teachings. This is hardly a unique organization.

Here is a christian arbitration group

http://www.bluestratus.net/servlets/...%20Clauses.pdf (http://www.bluestratus.net/servlets/DocumentDownloadHandler/234516/37116/115992/Faith-Based%20General%20Med%20Arb%20Clauses.pdf)

This organization advises people on how to put religious conditions on contracts. Don't hear anyone screaming about this one though.

P'SHARA Jewish Dispute Resolution, Inc. is a jewish arbitration organization. Anyone complaining about that one? Did not think so.

But at the mention of Islam, people get suddenly so concerned. I wonder why?



I have been pwned:cry:


I may still revolt anyway. just for fun:D

[Letum]

Why make this a issue about Islam?
There are plenty of other kinds of arbitration courts.

A town not far from me has it's own secular one. Some churches and synagogues have them.
They have been around for a very long time. This is n new issue and no Islam-specific issue.

If you don't think they should have authority over you, they don't!
If you don't think they are just, don't take your cases there. < Letum buries head in sand....Tries to justify it and fails....>


Instead of making a broad statement like that, with out backing it up with
anything, how about countering me with reasoned argument, facts, examples,
or any other way there is to disagree with some one in a way that holds weight.

[Platapus]

I may still revolt anyway. just for fun:D

Spoken like a true Jeffersonian. :up:

[Platapus]

can a burglar sue the owner of house if he is injured/trapped during his "job"?


Ok this is going to ruin your day.

Massad Ayoob wrote about some cases where he served as an expert witness for self defense shooting cases.

There was this case where the criminal courts ruled that the homeowner was justified in shooting a burglar.

Then the case went into civil court. The family of the burglar successfully sued the homeowner because the homeowner, by defending himself, deprived the family of their livelihood (burglary).

The homeowner ended up paying "damages" to the burglar's family!!!

There is no limit if you have a slicky lawyer and a stupid judge. :nope:

That is so wrong on so many levels. :damn: