1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Independent enquiry into Sharia courts

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Joe_Pubes, Dec 24, 2015.

  1. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    Home Secretary Theresa May has ordered an independent enquiry into Sharia courts. A recently published study has shown that there is a parallel legal system operating in the UK, official law and that of Sharia law in the "shadows of the legal system". Machteld Zee, an independent researcher and legal scholar at Leiden University in Holland was able to gain unprecedented access to cases heard in Sharia courts. She was shocked at what she found.

    In several cases men were automatically given custody of children after a divorce, women were often held responsible for their husbands debts and were forced to pay the husband large sums of money to agree to the divorce and Muslim women feel constrained by religious and cultural traditions into applying for a religious divorce because a secular divorce is not recognised under Sharia law. If a women was to re-marry without obtaining a Sharia divorce she would be at risk of the death penalty for adultery. In some countries this means being stoned to death.

    From the study the Independent found that Sharia courts view secular divorces as counting for nothing. Although as to be expected some Sharia judges disputed the findings, the first woman to be appointed as a Sharia judge admitted in an earlier enquiry that there had been a secret rise in polygamy in Britain. “Probably a quarter of all couples I see involve polygamy issues. There has been a huge rise in recent years because people can have a secret nikah [Islamic marriage] and no one will know about it.”



  2. Condell_for_PM

    Condell_for_PM New commenter

    I'll bet there are no adverse findings, even if there are.
  3. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    Course not in this society of cowards.
  4. Horatio_Blows

    Horatio_Blows Senior commenter

    It cannot come early enough.
  5. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    It sure can't.
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  6. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    The report will confirm it, May will go on tv and everywhere she can to let us know she is appalled and 'taking drastic measures now to rectify matters'...and absolutely nothing will be done or change, bar that the Sharia courts will know they have a few more years at least before another fake inspection and so will go about their business even more stringently.
  7. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    Yes because there is no mainstream party willing to crack down on the parallel legal system operating in this country. A society of cowards.
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  8. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Star commenter

    Anyone who wants to read an informed account of what Sharia is and how Sharia courts work can find it in two publications:

    Khaled Abu El Fadl The Great Theft : Wrestling Islam from the Extremists

    John Bowen Blaming Islam

    I have recently posted a summation of what Sharia is in this forum. But - in the Christmas spirit - here it is again.

    For moderate Muslims,God's mind is the 'homeland' of Sharia. In other words, Sharia plays approximately the same role that eternal law does in something like Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law theory. What pople generally refer to as 'Sharia' is, in fact, fiqh or jurisprudence.

    The article assumes that Islamic jurisprudence is a monolithic entity when, in fact, it isn't. Historically there have been about 130 schools of Islamic legal thought, though most are now extinct.

    According to the moderate conception of fiqh, it can only approximate Sharia, as it would be presumptuous for a moderate Muslim to second guess the mind of God. This explains the proliferation of law schools within Islam and the emphasis on the use of 'aql or reason, to constantly revise the law to uphold justice.

    In effect, what this means is that most of what is called Islamic law is a human product subject to error, revision, development and nullification. The eternal law as it exists in God's mind is perfect, but it is also inaccessible to human beings. Human beings should strive to reach for and understand the divine law, but it is arrogant and offensive to ever claim that we could be certain that we have successfully grasped the eternal law.

    Therefore moderates contend that a jurist must humbly admit the possibility that what is claimed as Islamic law is subject to error. He must expend his best efforts to understand the eternal law, but must never assume that his opinion is identical to it. Again, there are some parallels with Aquinas's conception of rationality (recta ratio) in his own theological and ethical system, the one that has been influential on Catholicism.

    For the jihadists, contrastingly, using reason is forbidden. All that Muslims need to do is find the law and apply it strictly and faithfully, and that is the end of the process. Puritans believe that God made about 90% of the law clear in Qur'an and hadith, leaving about 10% open to debate.

    In other words, God is conceived of as an SLT micromanager, and the social impact that the law might have upon people is disregarded, just as the deleterious impact of OFSTED initiatives on pupils and staff is never taken into account . This is why, for example, jihadists have been so unpopular when they have tried to impose their uber-harsh form of Islamic law on other Muslims. They are oblivious to the horrendous suffering caused by the laws they have enforced. This is because they believe the laws they have imposed really do reflect the mind of God, so there is no point in evaluating the actual impact they have.

    As far as Sharia Law in the UK is concerned, Sharia Councils act as conflict mediators, or they provide religious, nonlegal divorces. They occupy a niche that lies outside, or rather across, the civil law. Judges understand that that the councils make no civil law claims.

    Furthermore, the experience with Sharia Councils shows that even with a maximally developed system of religious mediation, the line between religious bodies and the civil law remains clear. English courts will not delegate their authority to a mediation body; they will always look at the facts of a case and decide what is fair and reasonable according to English law. They may, for example, be reluctant to endorse a settlement where the wife surrenders her right to come back for more maintenance at a later stage, should conditions change. And when children are involved, all agreements, even those signed under a solicitor's aegis, are closely inspected to see that they meet the best interests of the child.

    So if some kind of Salafi-driven nonsense has been affecting the internal machinations of the councils, hopefully the enquiry will uncover it.

    In summary, Sharia Councils provide a method for navigating the confusing and somewhat incoherent world of international private law, making it easier for some Muslims to get on with family life. These tribunals offer a framework that encourages a convergence of Islamic norms with English law. Ultimately then, it is in this sense that the famously controversial call by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to 'recognise Sharia', should be understood.
  9. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Many thanks NMT - clear, reasoned and well-supported!

    IceCreamVanMan likes this.
  10. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    An informed account has already been done as seen above. And it assumes nothing but instead uses the unprecedented access the researcher, a legal scholar, had to Sharia courts. Real life cases not ones found in books based only on theory.
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  11. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    Clearly you would not recognise such. :)
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  12. NoseyMatronType

    NoseyMatronType Star commenter

    Bowen is an anthropologist. His observations were also based on sitting in on the proceedings of Sharia councils.

    Personally, I would assume that a fair amount of nonsense does go on in councils that have been influenced by the Salafi way of doing things. But there is a wider context for this whole issue. And I have set that out in detail for the benefit of ************ like yourself above.
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2015
  13. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    I have a PhD (in history) and went to Oxford; oddly, I can appreciate well-researched objective commentary.

    Perhaps instead of insulting your critics personally, you should focus on the topic of the thread?

    Odd - in advocating your right to free speech, you are denying others theirs.
    IceCreamVanMan and nomad like this.
  14. Sid_Pubes

    Sid_Pubes Senior commenter

    And it assumes nothing but instead uses the unprecedented access the researcher, a legal scholar, had to Sharia courts.

    The "unprecedented access" amounts to fifteen hours spent in a London Sharia court during which seven cases were witnessed [the court referenced deals with 800 marital cases per year plus its other caseload]. Ms Zee, as an atheist, has an interest which she ought to have declared in finding sharia courts unjust, so her conclusions, especially when based on such slender evidence, are very suspect. When she defends the PhD she intends to base on this study she will find the peer review panel contemptuous of such a shifty academic approach.

    This thread, like most of those posted by Joe *****, is tendentious, bigoted piffle.

    And when, Joe *****, are you going to come clean about the lies you told about your user name and its longevity? A proven liar unwilling to admit to his dishonesty will not find his threads given much credence on a forum where people set store by evidence and honesty.
    sabrinakat and nomad like this.
  15. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    are we not getting our ***** crossed !
    sabrinakat likes this.
  16. sabrinakat

    sabrinakat Star commenter

    Just think 'Joe Stalin'..... handlebar-fake-moustache.jpg

    that should help tell the difference.........
    nomad and IceCreamVanMan like this.
  17. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    So you claim. Not unprecedented as Zee's was if there was any in the first place.

    Since you assume just about everything you post it's not surprising you have failed to convince any one but the bottom feeding mongs like yourself above.
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  18. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    Clearly you have learned nothing from it and cannot distinguish from reasoned debate and simple assumption based on others' work.

    Unlike you I have not insulted anyone. You need to learn what focussing on a topic means and the difference between that and trolling a thread as you are doing here and several other threads.
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  19. Joe_Pubes

    Joe_Pubes Senior commenter

    Your hero is he?
    Cantandmorecant and Cliffedge like this.
  20. IceCreamVanMan

    IceCreamVanMan Occasional commenter

    oooh, you hit a nerve, NMT! Wonder if he knows the old adage about 'assume', except both parts refer to him....hehehehe!
    nomad likes this.

Share This Page