Existing (?) Sharia Courts in UK (?)
Here are the links to various reports.
[url]The Telegraph 30/11/2006:[/url]
[url]The Telegraph 23/01/2008[/url]
This man, Dr (?) Hassan is a judge in a Sharia court in London.
[url]Timesonline 02/12/2006[/url]
[url]Daily Mail 08/02/2008[/url]
A Sharia Court
Hin[url]dustan Times 09/02/2008[/url]
[url]Time 05/02/2006 did sound a note of caution. [/url]
But that was 2 years ago. Has matters become worse since?
Regards.
Prashna
Not thinking of you as xenophobic, Prashna. I was prompted to use that term because of the post referring to 'guests having to abide by our laws'. The people who might want to take advantage of this system of arbitration are British citizens, not 'guests'.
It just put me in mind of some of the hysterical comments I've been reading in the wake of the archbishop's comments. Some people are calling for his resignation over this!
Don't know about being off topic or not, but I'm shocked by our usual, equally horrific non-Islamic slaughter practices.
Thank you, Barafundle.,
for that re-assurance.
I agree with you, of course. To refer to UK citizens as Guests is not only inaccurate but offensive. Sorry to correct you about the country title. The country is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britain, N.I and the Associated Islands. I accept it's pedantic, but recently I saw a post by a N.I. poster who felt somewhat aggrieved.
I see no reason for the Archbishop to resign. IMO, he has done a great public service by drawing attention to this issue.
I am puzzled by your last comment. I understood that the standard system involved a bolt which shattered the brains of the animal in a fraction of a second. Death is extremely fast as a result.
Of course, human operators can miss and do not have the split-second reaction that Vulcan training endows as standard.
But so long as humans are human and many humans demand/expect to eat animal flesh, such suffering is unavoidable.
But, deliberately not to minimise it is unacceptable, IMO.
Regards.
Prashna
Prashna, I did not imply that you are xenophobic - I was pointing out to Barafundle that there is a lot of xenophobia in this country. With regard to halal slaughter, I was merely suggesting that having made your (valid) point you didn't need to go into such detail. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is pretty squeamish about this.
But some of the other posts on this thread are already proving the effectiveness of the press in stirring up fears and phobias about sharia law. I would suggest that in a day or two this will be forgotten and some other 'scandal' will have taken its place.
Coincidentally I was in Cambridge today when the Archbishop arrived to preside over a memorial service for the former Professor of Theology. The church was mobbed by press, both TV and print. I had the dubious honour of being interviewed by a reporter from the News of the World!!! I dread to think what he will do with what I said - for that reason I refused to give my name! I did use the word xenophobia but suggested that his readers might not know what it means! (How arrogant I am!)
But I will say again that there was no need for the Archbishop, as head of the Church of England, to make this pronouncement at this particular time. I think he must be awfully naive if he didn't realise what a hornet's nest he would stir up.
xxx
some of the other posts on this thread are already proving the effectiveness of the press in stirring up fears and phobias about sharia law. I would suggest that in a day or two this will be forgotten and some other 'scandal' will have taken its place.
I was thinking myself that there can't have been much real news around for the media to report on lately. Wars and famine don't seem to hold their attention for long.
Makes a change from being on the receiving end of wall to wall news on Britney Spears and Paris Hilton I suppose. It's just a shame that the obviously intelligent and well meaning archbishop made his comments in a slow news week.
But I will say again that there was no need for the Archbishop, as head of the Church of England, to make this pronouncement at this particular time. I think he must be awfully naive if he didn't realise what a hornet's nest he would stir up.
xxx
Of course, Sunanda
you must say what you feel. That is not only your right but your duty.
But my comment is simply this.
One does not achieve such high office without some qualities. He might well have information that you or I simply do not have.
He has defended his decision and said that his decision and speech were very well considered and thoroughly researched.
I would give the man the benefit of the doubt.
Regards.
Prashna
P.S.
I am very sorry to have hurt your sensitivities by going into detail. But IMO it was necessary. I believe that many aspects of Sharia are inhumane, and it is quite wrong to sanitise them.
I wonder how much it will cost tax payers to adopt a new law!? If you come to this country, i think people should abide by our customs and laws. Afterall, I always do whenever I am in another country. I think we are too submissive sometimes!
I wonder how much it will cost tax payers to adopt a new law!? If you come to this country, i think people should abide by our customs and laws. Afterall, I always do whenever I am in another country. I think we are too submissive sometimes!
Angelcakes
It's not about 'adopting a new law'. That's not what the Archbishop meant. We already have Orthodox Jewish 'courts' dealing with Orthodox Jewish matters. I never heard any fuss about that. (Did anyone ever know or care?) But, before posting, did it not occur to you that Muslims are taxpayers too? Increasingly some people seem to be thinking that there are British people on one hand and Muslim people on the other. What a pickle.
xx
It's not about 'adopting a new law'. That's not what the Archbishop meant. We already have Orthodox Jewish 'courts' dealing with Orthodox Jewish matters. I never heard any fuss about that. (Did anyone ever know or care?) But, before posting, did it not occur to you that Muslims are taxpayers too? Increasingly some people seem to be thinking that there are British people on one hand and Muslim people on the other. What a pickle.
xx
I couldn't have put it better myself. Yes - Orthodox Jews go to the Beth Din (their court) for a Jewish religious divorce (a Get) but have to apply to the British courts for a civil divorce. I have many Jewish friends and used to spend a lot of time in North London - hence being aware of the above. The Beth Din also advises on a variety of issues including diet, what to wear etc - whether something is Kosher meat (killed/stored/cooked according to Jewish law) plus other foods/brands of foods that are kosher/non kosher i.e. Nen and Jerry's ice cream may be kosher but Walls ice cream may not be (this is an example and should not be taken as fact).
As I said in the previous post - the whipping up of hysteria by the media does no-one any favours and having a logical discussion about this is proving very difficult.
Angelcakes
It's not about 'adopting a new law'. That's not what the Archbishop meant. We already have Orthodox Jewish 'courts' dealing with Orthodox Jewish matters. I never heard any fuss about that. (Did anyone ever know or care?) But, before posting, did it not occur to you that Muslims are taxpayers too? Increasingly some people seem to be thinking that there are British people on one hand and Muslim people on the other. What a pickle.
xx
Silly me, I thought that if you lived in Britain you should abide by British laws.
No one minds the Jewish courts because they do not break British law they advise on Jewish matters only. Also their divorce system is not recognised by British law, as has been said before.
Silly me, I thought that if you lived in Britain you should abide by British laws.
No one minds the Jewish courts because they do not break British law they advise on Jewish matters only. Also their divorce system is not recognised by British law, as has been said before.
I don't think divorces received under muslim law are recognised by British courts either. Neither would be Catholic annullments -as they are purely religious also.
I don't think divorces received under muslim law are recognised by British courts either. Neither would be Catholic annullments -as they are purely religious also.
That's my point, if they are purely religious and do not break British law, then why is there a need to change the status quo?
But I will say again that there was no need for the Archbishop, as head of the Church of England, to make this pronouncement at this particular time. I think he must be awfully naive if he didn't realise what a hornet's nest he would stir up.
Maybe he knew and we've reacted as he had hoped. I don't mean this in the positive, "Let's get round the table and discuss great, new possibilities."
Sharia vs equal rights
Silly me, I thought that if you lived in Britain you should abide by British laws.
No one minds the Jewish courts because they do not break British law they advise on Jewish matters only. Also their divorce system is not recognised by British law, as has been said before.
There is a fundamental principle at stake here; equality of all in Law.
Sharia is directly opposed to that fundamental principle.
Now I do not know in detail and with accuracy just how sharia operates in various countries. But from what little I know, it appears most abhorrent as it fails in very important respects:
(1) equality of gender - are the testimomonies of men and women given equal weight? Who is going to ensure equality?
(2) equality in faith - Muslim vs. Non-Muslim. equal weight given to testimony?
(3) equality in beliefs - heterosexual vs homosexual; believers v Atheists.
(4) equity and fairness in decisions - who ensures these?
(5) Regulation - who regulates the so-called sharia judges? How do we ensure that they are judgment is sound and fair?
(6) Uniformity - I understand that sharia is not the same from Muslim country to another. Who ensures that the correct form of sharia is used? How many types of sharia courts will there need to be?
So in the end, I can see no basis for sharia Courts in this country at all.
In fact, even to call them Courts gives them a false sense of propriety and authority that is wholly unjustified.
The checks and balances are not there; nor is there any public scrutiny of their operation.
The comparison with Jews is most unfair, because it does not take into account the problem of scale.
[url]According to this table[/url], there were six times as many Muslims as Jews in UK in 2001. Since the growth rate of Muslims is significantly higher, that proportion is increasing all the time.
Therefore, if there is a problem it is going to be at least, six times worse with the Muslims.
For example consider ritual slaughter. If that is considered needlessly cruel, as I believe it to be, then the legalisation of Islamic ritual slaughter has made the problem more than seven times worse.
The number of Muslim Restaurants in UK exceed Jewish ones quite significantly and they mostly if not always serve halal meat. Therefore, it is probable that the problem has been made much more than seven times worse by allowing Sharia slaughter in UK.
So any comparison with another community is unfair, unless the problem of scale is given full consideration.
Regards.
Prashna
The comparison with Jews is most unfair, because it does not take into account the problem of scale.
[url]According to this table[/url], there were six times as many Muslims as Jews in UK in 2001. Since the growth rate of Muslims is significantly higher, that proportion is increasing all the time.
Therefore, if there is a problem it is going to be at least, six times worse with the Muslims.
For example consider ritual slaughter. If that is considered needlessly cruel, as I believe it to be, then the legalisation of Islamic ritual slaughter has made the problem more than seven times worse.
The number of Muslim Restaurants in UK exceed Jewish ones quite significantly and they mostly if not always serve halal meat. Therefore, it is probable that the problem has been made much more than seven times worse by allowing Sharia slaughter in UK.
As I've said in previous posts - I personally don't have a definitive view on whether we should have Sharia law or not here. I would however like to hear more about what is involved rather than hearing emotive accounts from the media. Many aspects of Sharia relate to everyday living not necessarily related to criminal activity.
I was alarmed to read the above though Prashna. I feel that these statements are inflammatory and biased. I didn't know that it was against the law to have children ?? Yes - many Muslim families are large(ish) by Western standards but there again i know many Muslim families (the majority in fact) who have 2 or 3 children. Part of the Orthodox jewish religion is that they have as many children as they can afford/look after. All the orthodox Jewish families I'm aware of have at least 4 children and 6-8 children are not uncommon. So all the Orthodox jewish families i know are all twice as big as the Muslim ones. Yes - there are also fewer Jews in Europe generally due to what happened over 50 years ago.
Both kosher meat and Halal meat are killed similarly - so if one is cruel so must the other be as well. They also abide by the laws of this country when killing an animal. Yes - I know perhaps animals are killed in back yards - but this goes for Brits who just raise chickens in their gardens as well.
I can assure you from personal knowledge that not many Muslims would serve halal meat in their restaurants - only if it's requested - as it's way too expensive and cuts into profit margins.
there should be equality in law that is our basic right and can i clarify the comment about being guests in our country. if someone has become a british citezen then they are not a guest they have taken on our country and i would hope with that they would take on board our laws if they dont do that then how can they be a citezen of this country i may be looking at this in simple terms and i do believe that the slaughter is cruel to see an animal suffer in pain until it dies is terrible