Islam 1 : Britain 0

Titus wrote today:
" I have heard Muslim elements call for separate courts ... I have NOT heard even ONE representative voice of British Government voice serious consideration of this plan, though. No one from Downing Street, or Parliament, or the House of Lords seems to be taking the question seriously at all. They wouldn't do it for the Irish, the Scots, or the Welsh... I find it terribly difficult to believe that they would do it for a Muslim minority, no matter how vocal."

Alright, I believe you. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. I believe you haven't heard anyone within their government take the calls for Muslim Courts seriously. And furthermore that you don't think they will allow such a thing to even initiate, let alone that's its already operating now. I mean it's not like our PC press would publicize it to the point of saturation from sea to shining sea (outside of a one day story on FOX).

So, below is from the London Times Online dated 9/14/08 (link is at the bottom). And you can check a myriad of UK online mainstream newspapers (Telegraph, etc), all of the articles confirm the same thing.

From The Sunday Times

September 14, 2008

Revealed: UK’s First Official Sharia Courts

Abul Taher

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

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Two things: First, the equivalent of their Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the head of their judiciary, Chief Justice Lord Phillips, is on the record with his endorsement of the idea as you can see from above. I think that qualifies as "one representative voice of the British government." Secondly, the key here which separates it from the Jewish arbitration Courts (the Beth Din courts), is that the government - quietly or otherwise - is allowing for British common law courts to enforce these rulings as law, even in criminal cases such as domestic violence. Beth Din is still voluntary compliance as WAS the Shari courts. In other words previously if you didn't agree with the Sharia ruling you could still take your case to "real court" and start from scratch. And that is still the case in the Jewish court for precisely the reason that there MUST be one court system enforceable by law for everyone ... not any more. You noted my point about the Muslim Courts was a quote, "sound one." And that was with your belief that these courts were still a fundamentalist's pipe dream. Now that you see they are a reality and carry as much weight with the cases they hear as do the British Court's, I'm curious if you've moved on from employing adjectives such as "sound" ... to "alarmed?"