[Igor Antunov]

Honor kill my shit up fam.

[Saeko]

Anyone who opposes Sharia Law in England is racist.

Do you oppose Sharia Law in England, dear reader?

[Beren]

It's still better than EU law, isn't it?

Why not implement it in some parts of London where the majority is Muslim anyways?

Is there any legislation/constitution/etc. that bans the implementation of something like Sharia law in England?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

This is what Britain gets for having religious courts (the Jewish "Beth Din" comes to mind) in the first place. Considering the scope, authority, and power of religious courts already in existence in the UK, one might conclude it's not a cause for concern. However, I'd imagine with the degenerate Gulf states promoting Wahhabism in Western mosques, Sharia courts in the UK would come with the risk of being a vehicle for facilitating further Salafist extremism.

[Ter]

Well, I am not saying they should or shouldn't, but I have been told that there is less theft in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. For obvious reasons.

I do find inconsistencies in Sharia law: when you steal they cut your arm off but when you commit adultery it is the head and not the criminal part that get hacked away
(\S)

[Beren]

Maybe if they could implement Sharia law outside the EU Hungarians would leave for that.

[ThirdTerm]

This video was originally uploaded by an Assyrian refugee (ɳαɳ૮ყ ن @LVNancy) who settled in America some time ago. Clicking on the video link to Twitter reveals the original uploader, who is not credited in the embedded video. Probably it is an old footage of an Islam4UK protest and its associated extremist groups have been banned in the UK. Anjem Choudary, the main organiser of pro-sharia protests, is currently serving a five-year sentence for Islamic extremism.

https://twitter.com/LVNancy

[ingliz]

Sharia courts in the UK

The Islamic Sharia Council (ISC) is a British organisation that provides legal rulings and advice to Muslims in accordance with its interpretation of Islamic Sharia based on the four Sunni schools of thought. It primarily handles cases of marriage and divorce and, to a lesser extent business and finance. Thousands of Muslims have turned to the Council to resolve family and financial issues. The Economist magazine states it has offered rulings to "thousands of troubled families since the 1980s", the council states that it has dealt with an average of between 200 and 300 cases monthly as of January 2012.

The council has no legal authority in the United Kingdom, and cannot enforce any penalties; many Muslims would appear voluntarily to accept the rulings made by the ISC.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is a form of alternative dispute resolution which operates under the Arbitration Act 1996 which is available in England. It is one of two services (Islamic Sharia Council is the other) for Muslims who wish to resolve disputes without recourse to the courts system. According to Machteld Zee, the MAT differs from other Sharia councils in that their ‘core business’ is arbitrating commercial disputes under the Arbitration Act 1996.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

@ingliz Why did you quote me with information that clearly wasn't unknown to me (I referenced religious courts and their lack of authority in my post), and what are you smiley facing/smirking about? I literally referenced the Jewish courts, and pointed out that they have no real authority. They cannot enforce punishments or force anyone abide by their rulings. The same goes for other religious courts. I have no tolerance for religious courts of any kind, authority or no authority. Your post to me makes absolutely no sense.

[ingliz]

I referenced religious courts and their lack of authority in my post, and what are you smiley facing/smirking about?

The lack of authority bit.

Under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the tribunals operate within the framework of English law and do not constitute a separate Islamic legal system.

Rulings can be enforced in England and Wales by both the County Courts and the High Court.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

So the courts themselves cannot force participating parties to abide by its rulings: the UK courts themselves have to end up deciding to enforce a ruling if one or more parties reneges. I'm not sure how this differs much from what I said about religious courts being unable to exercise direct authority, and in any case, none should exist. Okay? What's your point?

[ingliz]

the UK courts themselves have to end up deciding to enforce

No.

Arbitrating commerce:

There is no "deciding". When the parties to the dispute agree to arbitration, the decision is binding. The Sharia court's ruling will be enforced.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The quote you provided:

Rulings can be enforced in England and Wales by both the County Courts and the High Court.

That quote makes it sound like if one party doesn't like the ruling, then the ruling has to be reviewed and enforced by a secular, civil court. I'm not an expert on British law and I haven't been looking at Wikipedia articles on the subject today as much as you have.

Again, what point are you making? That there's Wiki articles I haven't read, or that there is a minute detail about something I didn't know? I already knew religious courts existed (and if I didn't know, so?); I don't put stock in religious courts. I thought you were a communist?

[SolarCross]

I thought you were a communist?

Communism was always just a pale imitation of the real thing, Islam. Deep down every communist knows they should just be a muslim and be done with it.

[Ter]

I think that the "voluntary" participation is not voluntary at all.
As with the head coverings, I am pretty sure pressure from family and religious authority will push Muslims to accept the sharia courts in lieu of civil courts.
So I call bullshit on the whole matter. There should be only one kind of court and for Britain, it should be the civil one.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Probably it is an old footage of an Islam4UK protest

I'm not sure I'd go that far; it looks more like a march to celebrate Mohammed's birthday - eg http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/ne ... ?ref=var_6 . If it was a demonstration, it had a distinct lack of chanting, or signs in English to get their message across. Which is why I think it's probably something religious. It does look very English though.

[ingliz]

a minute detail about something

4 Mandatory and non-mandatory provisions

[...]

(3) The parties may make such arrangements by agreeing to the application of institutional
rules or providing any other means by which a matter may be decided.

(4) It is immaterial whether or not the law applicable to the parties’ agreement is the law
of England and Wales or, as the case may be, Northern Ireland.

(5) The choice of a law other than the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland as
the applicable law in respect of a matter provided for by a non-mandatory provision
of this Part is equivalent to an agreement making provision about that matter.

For this purpose an applicable law determined in accordance with the parties’
agreement, or which is objectively determined in the absence of any express or implied
choice, shall be treated as chosen by the parties.

58 Effect of award.

(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an award made by the tribunal pursuant to
an arbitration agreement is final and binding both on the parties and on any persons
claiming through or under them.

I thought you were a communist?

As a communist, one must deal with the world as is.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Ok, you read a Wikipedia article and you know how to copy-paste. And? Do you have a point of contention with my dislike for religious courts?

[ingliz]

Do you have a point of contention with my dislike for religious courts?

No, I have a point of contention with you posting shite. To be honest, it's not just you. Every thread with an Islamic theme, of which there are many lately, is an invitation for no nothing users to post ill informed shite.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I'm sorry you think objecting to the existence of any establishment capable of reinforcing reactionary religious views and enforcing reactionary rulings is "shite." I'm not sure what I said that isn't true: the Saudis and other Gulf states spend billions to export Wahhabism/Salafism abroad. This works hand-in-hand with religious courts in making people feel pressured to submit themselves to religious rulings. It seems strange that you are defending reactionaries. I have no tolerance for religious courts of any faith.

I don't care what you think other people have said. I don't hate Muslims and I didn't say all Muslims are Wahhabists, Salafists, or members of ISIS. You should probably direct your frustration at people who have said those things, and not me, because it comes across as not only weird but needless. If you do reply, please put some thought into your post and make sure you are addressing what I have actually said, not what you imagine I've said.