This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Sharia courts conquer UK

Sharia courts conquer UK - Comments

Duff's Avatar Comment 1 by Duff

Religion is not a crutch, a security blanket, a thumb to suck nor a skirt to hold (a nod to Asimov). It is the basis of all our morals, all that is good, all that is just, all that lifts mankind to greater and better morality. The fact that most of its adherents are skum sucking dip sticks is irrelevant, immaterial and beside the point.

The fact that its leaders are power hungry, misogynistic dipsticks, is immaterial. The fact that the movement wants to impose their world view on everyone else in the world is irrelevant. They must be respected.

What could possibly be wrong with the good muslims operating their own courts? What?

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:59:00 UTC | #389067

MuayThaiGuy's Avatar Comment 2 by MuayThaiGuy

Disgusting how can this be? In the US wouldn't this be Treason? I don't understand how a group can operate a system of government such as a court of law inside another nation.

I am confused what is the legal basis? Any British barristers out there?

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:09:00 UTC | #389071

cam9976's Avatar Comment 3 by cam9976

I'm American and have always looked to Europe as a sort of well working liberal ideal that we should try and reflect at home. But now that women are officially second-class citizens in some U.K. groups, I'll have to look elsewhere for inspiration.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:21:00 UTC | #389075

astronomer24's Avatar Comment 4 by astronomer24

Shut this disgusting shit down now.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:24:00 UTC | #389076

martinmerrywinkle's Avatar Comment 5 by martinmerrywinkle

to the american's wondering why this is allowed in the UK, it's because the people running our country would shoot their own mother, drown their own kids, burn their grandparents, and piss on the bodies, if a muslim told them to.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:29:00 UTC | #389079

Philster61's Avatar Comment 6 by Philster61

Im outta here!!!

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:31:00 UTC | #389080

ridelo's Avatar Comment 8 by ridelo

Can somebody please tell me how I can shut my mouth again?

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:38:00 UTC | #389083

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 7 by Adrian Bartholomew

Someone correct me if I am wrong but these are OFFICIAL courts operating under the 1996 Arbitration Act. So that if both parties agree to the arbitration (yeah right if you are a woman…) then whatever decision the arbitration court makes is legally binding under full British law. Thus it is Sharia Law MANDATED by British Law.

EDIT Reposted from before the site spazzed out :-)

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:38:00 UTC | #389082

Andrew Temple's Avatar Comment 9 by Andrew Temple

This is a terrible state of affairs! To accommodate the archaic, repressive system of law that is Sharia is a massive step backwards ethically and morally! What is the UK doing!?!

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:39:00 UTC | #389085

Cowcakes's Avatar Comment 10 by Cowcakes

How on earth can you have any though of equality under the law when you allow subgroups within society to create their own. If you do not submit to and abide by the laws of a country then you should not be part of it. You should lose all your social welfare and voting rights or better yet be deported.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:59:00 UTC | #389092

Ania's Avatar Comment 11 by Ania

It seems as though Britain is taking gradual and incremental steps towards becoming an Islamic state. With ultra high Muslim fertility rates/ immigration, and low integrations rates, the native population is basically doomed. Meanwhile, the small, yet consistent, changes they do impose politically and culturally are significant enough to make headlines, but gradual enough to get away with on a regular basis. Genius!!

I feel sorry for the next few generations who will have to clean up the mess if they're not already strapped in burquas and brainwashed into reciting quaranic scripture 25 times a day after the Islamic educational reform arrives.. oh wait, it already has!

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:04:00 UTC | #389095

bethe123's Avatar Comment 12 by bethe123

Consciousness raising is required here.

Sharia is a form of abuse on human rights and on women in particular.

It needs to be called what it is: Sharia ABUSE.

As such, it should not be allowed in any civilized country.

What a pathetic country England has become for allowing this.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:30:00 UTC | #389106

prolibertas's Avatar Comment 13 by prolibertas

Well what the f@#k did they expect, the morons.

Granting tolerance of the wish to destroy tolerance... the right of people to destroy rights... the freedom to eradicate freedom... well done, UK. You've gone and f@#ked yourself royally in the ass.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:37:00 UTC | #389112

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 14 by rod-the-farmer

Some years ago the shahria court idea was proposed in Ontario, Canada. There was a huge outcry over this, to the point that the Premier was not only forced to say this would never happen in Ontario, but to then terminate all existing religion-based courts. This includes the jewish ones, which had operated for years.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/09/sharia-protests-20050909.html

I have been unable to find any news references to sharia courts in the other Canadian provinces.

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:52:00 UTC | #389123

bethe123's Avatar Comment 15 by bethe123

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:56:00 UTC | #389126

Akaei's Avatar Comment 16 by Akaei

In the US this obscenity might be allowed as a form of legal arbitration.

I don't know if there is a minimum legal requirement to practice arbitration but that would merely be an obstacle rather than an absolute restriction of religious laws being imposed on "willing" participants in civil matters.

That these religious leaders wish to (or find it their responsibility to) sit in judgment should scare the crap out of anyone living in a society with a half-way decent legal system. (which begs the counter-point: do we have a half-way decent legal system?)

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:04:00 UTC | #389129

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Zara

Comment #406645 by Ania

I agree with thomas guihen.

Britain is not on the way to becoming an Islamic state, and the demographic arguments are alarmist nonsense. There have been Muslim communities in the UK for centuries, and over that period the majority have integrated and accept UK law and democratic principles.

The problem here is not that Shariah law will have any impact on the majority, but that it can be used to oppress people within the Muslim cultures that use it.

Adults should be able to come to just about any consensual agreements they like. The problem is having a parallel legal system endorsed by UK law. There is a simple principle here: access to legal rights should not be a cultural lottery, and provision of legal services should be uniform and consistent.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:08:00 UTC | #389131

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 18 by Ignorant Amos

The local government in the UK is paying lip service to this sort of thing....

I picked this up in a red top rag that was sitting in a local bar while I was out celebrating the anniversary of my birth this evening...

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/94104/Muslims-win-cover-up-row/

I'm not sure if its funny or sad...I was laughing earlier but now I'm not so sure...hic!

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:14:00 UTC | #389133

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 19 by Steve Zara

Comment #406693 by Ignorant Amos

I am a very tolerant fellow. I don't support things like public burqa bans, for example.

But, reading that article (assuming it is true):

"Special sessions have been introduced for Muslims, when all other swimmers have to conform."

That is going too far. That is unacceptable. If individuals want to wear what they like, that is up to them. But imposing this rule on others is not fair, not reasonable and not integration. It is authoritarian.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:21:00 UTC | #389137

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 20 by Ignorant Amos

20. Comment #406698 by Steve Zara

Yes Steve, I followed the debate on the other thread you had with Nairb on this subject and I got something from both perspectives...with some valid points on both sides.

Sort of goes against the grain a bit, what?

I thought this would be of some interest....if it is true of course....Daily Star????

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:36:00 UTC | #389143

bethe123's Avatar Comment 21 by bethe123

Ania,

You are of course 100% correct. Good job.

"The problem here is not that Shariah law will have any impact on the majority, but that it can be used to oppress people within the Muslim cultures that use it." -- Steve Zara

Well this is a rather uniformed and unintelligent statement. Early symptoms of Alzheimers, Steve?

The problem with Sharia is that it is fundamentally cruel and evil, and particularly so towards women... stoning women for adultery, cutting off hands for stealing, threatening lashes to a teacher for naming a teddy bear Mohamed(!!), being KILLED FOR CHANGING ONES MIND, etc ,etc, etc...in America these would be called cruel and unusual punishments and I would assume would not be allowed by virtue of the 8th amendment -- though I am not a lawyer.

Sharia is abuse. 5% of the population practicing what is an abuse of women and human rights is 5% too much.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:39:00 UTC | #389146

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 22 by Steve Zara

Comment #406707 by bethe123

Sharia is abuse. 5% of the population practicing what is an abuse of women and human rights is 5% too much.


Which is precisely what I said in the statement you said was uninformed, ignorant and dementia-fueled.

Incidentally, if you hear of anyone chopping off limbs within the UK as a form of punishment, I should let the police know, there's a good fellow. Shariah or no Shariah, it is against UK law.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:53:00 UTC | #389151

zonotrichia's Avatar Comment 23 by zonotrichia

I have no problem with people and businesses utilizing private arbitration of whatever kind to resolve disputes, so long as they choose to be contractually bound by the rules and outcomes of the arbitrator and so long as the real courts do NOT give the force of law to illegal contracts. One cannot create an enforceable contract whereby one person permits another to commit a battery or "give" one's child in marriage before the child is of legal age, for example. The decisions of private arbitrators should never be a defense to violations of civil or criminal law.

I would guess that the would-be divorcees who submit to these courts do so in order to get the blessing of their families to proceed with the divorce. With the approval of the Sharia court, a Muslim woman has a chance to get a divorce and move on with her life. Without it, I suspect she is likely to be ostracized or worse. It seems to me to be similar to a Catholic seeking an annulment.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:59:00 UTC | #389154

bethe123's Avatar Comment 24 by bethe123

thomas guihen--

"Accommodation, where practical, should prevail. So, for the sake of example, I have no problem with Muslims being allocated time and space at work for prayer."

Why do you defend and wish to accommodate a religion that severely oppresses women? Are you a misogynist, or do you agree with Islam on this treatment?

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:17:00 UTC | #389157

HappyPrimate's Avatar Comment 25 by HappyPrimate

MuayTaiGuy - you asked how can this be? In the US wouldn't this be Treason? I don't understand how a group can operate a system of government such as a court of law inside another nation.

There are a number of native american tribes/nations who run their own governments within the USA. Their reservations are not considered for certain legal purposes as part of our country. They have a certain amount of sovereignty.

Nevertheless, I find this Sharia court thing highly disgusting.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:54:00 UTC | #389160

Sheol99's Avatar Comment 26 by Sheol99

I expect something like this will happen, since the annoucements of two pronged attacks of wahabis: soft approaches through parlementers, the hard core approaches of terrorism, and things in between.
The hard core approaches help the soft cores, and vice versa. These operations has been successful in many democratic slightly autocratic) systems (, like Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. The terrors remind everybody that "we are here to stay", the soft-cores worked behind the surface to cement changes legally. The publicly approved faces of the soft-cores somewhat legitimize the hard-cores. In longer terms most of open societies are doomed against these attacks.
I would say this social insurgencies are worthy of the comintern in the past.

Now, the interesting thing is this British variation, is it indeed a provision in British law to have independent courts? (supposedly approved by their adherents). I am no lawyer, even more the British laws are very opaque.

Anybody can answer the question above? Can this kind of things be 'legal' under British law?
If it is, this would be a new development, maybe will be of interest among the British-law camps of democracies in the world (India, Singapore etc).

well ....

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:05:00 UTC | #389162

bethe123's Avatar Comment 27 by bethe123

thomas guihen --

Are you joking or are you just uneducated?

Accommodation is a form of acceptance. Hence my question -- are you a misogynist?

The rights of women to not be abused must trump any religious freedoms.

The first step is to stop being accommodating and start recognizing the abuses Sharia perpetuates.

One should not even have to be in a position to accommodate Sharia -- it should be made illegal in England.

But it will NEVER be made illegal if you appease and accommodate it.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:09:00 UTC | #389163

dumbcountryhick's Avatar Comment 28 by dumbcountryhick

'Diversity' will nearly be the death of us all.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:21:00 UTC | #389164

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 29 by SaintStephen

Sharia (and religions in general) need to be treated like mental diseases that have infected otherwise sane and good people. This is why Christianity has to go along with Islam and Judaism. These people are all sick, and they all need treatment and sympathy from us while they recover from their delusions and/or brainwashing.

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:43:00 UTC | #389168

Goldy's Avatar Comment 30 by Goldy

Does it matter if people want to use shariah courts? Really? If it's the subjugation of women that worries people, there are laws in the land that protect them. Indeed, they reach even to the Muslim lands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/15/gp-bangladesh-forced-marriage
Shariah affects those that want it, not those that don't use them. I dare say the numbers of second and third generation Muslims prefer to use lawyers and the proper courts in most cases and use shariah to tackle the small issues. Certainly beth Din courts don't seem to have ripped the fabric of British society and I do believe they've been used for centuries...
Scaremongering by the press, I think it is. And a useful political tool.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minister-who-left-muslim-wedding-attacked-1773473.html
Seems to be working, mind. There is a backlash coming...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6034998/Why-must-we-bow-to-the-intolerant-ways-of-Islam.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/swiss-move-to-ban-minarets-as-symbols-of-islamic-power-1771879.html

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:48:00 UTC | #389169