# Britain adopts sharia law. \[In domestic disputes providing both parties agree.\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 15, 2008, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727 "2008-09-15T19:18:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/41 "2008-09-16T02:04:55Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > Actually, he’s right. There is a huge uproar anytime there’s any sign of a government overtly supporting/favoring a religion or displaying religious symbols. Public display and Government display are two different things. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/42 "2008-09-16T03:20:56Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, gosh, countries have been doing it for longer than that. Marriage is a legally recognized institution. > > All civilized countries have some methodology for enforcing civil contracts. How would you propose you prove that a civil contract is NOT based on Islamic principles? Aren’t there unenforceable contracts? I know nothing about contract law, but I’m really not happy with people signing up, consensually or not, to be subjects of a separate, unjust and superstitiously-motivated court system. Religious and civil marriages are entirely separate in all but name. If people were legally required to follow the bible as it pertains to marriages, there would be no divorce and women would still be second-class citizens. And even though people can voluntarily opt in to this kind of arrangement, I sure wouldn’t want the government to enforce it. Religion can’t be kept entirely out of the law, but it should certainly be minimized, not embraced wholeheartedly and backed by the full force of the national government. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/43 "2008-09-16T03:27:57Z")
I generally don’t see a problem with it for reasons others have pointed out–the courts are just enforcing a contract. However, one possible problem is that English law may have trouble when dealing with arguments to collaterally attack a Sharia judgment. For example, when one party sues another on a contract, the defendant can argue that no contract existed because there was fraud in the inducement, etc. I’m not sure how this would work exactly when an English court is asked to enforce a Sharia judgment and the defendant argues that XYZ requirement of the Koran or Hadith was not complied with in the original case. I imagine the English court can kick the case back to the Sharia court to get those issues sorted out and then enforce the judgement as re-constituted (if it is re-constituted at all). However, it seems to me that situations could arise (currently I’m at a loss for an example) where a legitimately aggrieved party could be without a remedy simply because English courts don’t know anything about Sharia law. But maybe I’m wrong or having English courts enforce Sharia judgments outweighs this concern. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/44 "2008-09-16T04:27:16Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Did you happen to notice that this story doesn’t come from the United States?. Yah, that never occurred to me in a thread titled **Britain adopts sharia law**. Since the majority of posters in the Straight Dope are from the US I directing my post at them. If you read and understood my thread you would have seen the point of my dissent was the sexist nature of Sharia Law and the real possibility of the coercion of women. But thanks for sharing. Next time I’ll type it in British. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/45 "2008-09-16T04:46:51Z")
Interestingly, according to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Comparisons_with_common_law), Sharia law was a significant influence in the formation of English common law. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/46 "2008-09-16T05:51:49Z")
What a bizarre wikipedia article. Finishes up by just listing a vague ensemble of things that it claims have influenced common law, some of which are debatable to say the least: > [@](#): > > Other possible influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator. Justice rather than morality? You’re claiming that english common law didn’t have that before the Norman invasion? The law above the state? There _was_ no state when common law was founded. So the “law” was always above the “state”. That’s how it started. All of the above are doubtful/seriously debatable and yet the wiki article just lists them without any back-up. Makes me suspicious. English common law goes back centuries before the Norman invasion. There’s the Anglo-Saxon Dooms and [the laws of AEthelbert, King of Kent](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/560-975dooms.html#The%20Laws%20of%20%C3%86thelberht), from 560-616 AD. And they are sophisticated enough to suggest that their origins lie some centuries before that. They are just the earliest hard copies we have. Many of the principles in the quote above were already in common law long before the Normans arrived. And before the christians as well for that matter, that’s another thing that really pisses me off. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/47 "2008-09-16T07:21:43Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > What a bizarre wikipedia article. Finishes up by just listing a vague ensemble of things that it claims have influenced common law, some of which are debatable to say the least: It must be true, it’s on the Wiki site.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/48 "2008-09-16T09:17:18Z")
> [@5-HT](#): > > Actually, he’s right. There is a huge uproar anytime there’s any sign of a government overtly supporting/favoring a religion or displaying religious symbols. It’s the less visible and more meaningful parts of government where religion has a disturbing amount of influence here. Since this debate is about the freedom of individuals to choose the manner in which they resolve disputes, I assumed he was talking about personal religious displays, not public ones. I do now see the point he was trying to make, but it’s pretty much irrelevant as this conversation is not about government-run adjudication services. > [@](#): > > Also, have you ever been to Turkey? I was just there last year and I find you bringing them up here to be pretty laughable. They’re better than a lot of muslim countries, but they’re a long way from western style separation of church and state. Yes, I have been to Turkey, thank you. Again, I was speaking with reference to their (and France’s) headscarf ban, which you may have heard about (also, try being conspicuously Christian next time you’re over there, see how much fun you have). I was not referring to separation of church and state, because again, this thread is about _private adjudication services_. Edit: Thank you to whoever changed the thread title… ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/49 "2008-09-16T09:18:20Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I generally don’t see a problem with it for reasons others have pointed out–the courts are just enforcing a contract. > > However, one possible problem is that English law may have trouble when dealing with arguments to collaterally attack a Sharia judgment. For example, when one party sues another on a contract, the defendant can argue that no contract existed because there was fraud in the inducement, etc. > > I’m not sure how this would work exactly when an English court is asked to enforce a Sharia judgment and the defendant argues that XYZ requirement of the Koran or Hadith was not complied with in the original case. I imagine the English court can kick the case back to the Sharia court to get those issues sorted out and then enforce the judgement as re-constituted (if it is re-constituted at all). However, it seems to me that situations could arise (currently I’m at a loss for an example) where a legitimately aggrieved party could be without a remedy simply because English courts don’t know anything about Sharia law. But maybe I’m wrong or having English courts enforce Sharia judgments outweighs this concern. British courts are already dealing with such situations under commercial litigations with “sharia compliant” financial contracts. So far it’s worked fine, common law comes first. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/50 "2008-09-16T09:21:08Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Interestingly, according to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Comparisons_with_common_law), Sharia law was a significant influence in the formation of English common law. Never trust a bloody wiki article, that’s idiotic bollocks. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/51 "2008-09-16T10:30:24Z")
Thin end of the bloody wedge. In a culture with such an imbalance in power and status between the sexes the ‘all parties agree’ get-out is meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/52 "2008-09-16T10:46:25Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Never trust a bloody wiki article, that’s idiotic bollocks. So, is there absolutely no foundation whatsoever to the claims in that article? ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/53 "2008-09-16T10:54:46Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Never trust a bloody wiki article, that’s idiotic bollocks. Eh, didn’t say it was the gospel truth, but it’s an interesting take on things if there is any truth to it. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/54 "2008-09-16T11:46:42Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > So, is there absolutely no foundation whatsoever to the claims in that article? It’s fucking fantasy. “The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law.” **Come on now, are you fucking serious?** This is “maybe kinda sorta it sorta resembles post hoc ergo prompter hoc” tossing off. I’ve gotten nothing against influences, but that article is wonderful example of why Wikipedia is shite. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/55 "2008-09-16T11:53:20Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Thin end of the bloody wedge. In a culture with such an imbalance in power and status between the sexes the ‘all parties agree’ get-out is meaningless. Absolutely right man, shouldn’t let any damned Chavras or Geordies in Arbitration, given their culture and general demeanour. Can’t trust the lot of the drunken sots. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/56 "2008-09-16T12:27:49Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Eh, didn’t say it was the gospel truth, but it’s an interesting take on things if there is any truth to it. It would also be an interesting take on things if there were any truth to the assertion that GW Bush is the child of a monkey and a pig with lipstick, wouldn’t it? > [@wmfellows](#): > > It’s fucking fantasy. “The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law.” > > **Come on now, are you fucking serious?** This is “maybe kinda sorta it sorta resembles post hoc ergo prompter hoc” tossing off. > > I’ve gotten nothing against influences, but that article is wonderful example of why Wikipedia is shite. I disagree that “Wikipedia is shite” but I am totally with you on the rest. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/57 "2008-09-16T13:17:11Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > Absolutely right man, shouldn’t let any damned Chavras or Geordies in Arbitration, given their culture and general demeanour. Can’t trust the lot of the drunken sots. There was a Social Services report I read recently on battered women in asian households and it was horrific. The horror was compounded by the fact Muslim police colluded with the family. There is no point kidding ourselves as to the patriarchal, still firmly rooted in rural bangladesh, nature of masses of the Muslim immigrant population and what that means for the position of women. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/58 "2008-09-16T13:37:04Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Aren’t there unenforceable contracts? I know nothing about contract law, but I’m really not happy with people signing up, consensually or not, to be subjects of a separate, unjust and superstitiously-motivated court system. > > Religious and civil marriages are entirely separate in all but name. If people were legally required to follow the bible as it pertains to marriages, there would be no divorce and women would still be second-class citizens. And even though people can voluntarily opt in to this kind of arrangement, I sure wouldn’t want the government to enforce it. > > Religion can’t be kept entirely out of the law, but it should certainly be minimized, not embraced wholeheartedly and backed by the full force of the national government. There certainly are unenforcable contracts, and any contract or arbitration which created a result contrary to (English) public policy or exceeded legal or juristictional limits - set by the laws of England - would not be enforceable. Which is why this whole controversy is a mountain made of a molehill. The whole proceeding is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution, bound within the limits of (local) law. Now, there is a real debate as to whether certain family law matters should be subject to alternative dispute resolution at all - that is, to put it more simply, whether those engaged in divorce or other family law matters should be able to settle their affairs by contract, rather than going before a judge. There may be a valid argument that a certain degree of state paternalism is necessary in such cases due to the inherent risks of unbalanced bargaining positions. But that has nothing to do with the Sharia business - or rather, the Sharia business is just one specific example of a much more general problem. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/59 "2008-09-16T14:14:44Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Now, there is a real debate as to whether certain family law matters should be subject to alternative dispute resolution at all - that is, to put it more simply, whether those engaged in divorce or other family law matters should be able to settle their affairs by contract, rather than going before a judge. There may be a valid argument that a certain degree of state paternalism is necessary in such cases due to the inherent risks of unbalanced bargaining positions. couples who are breaking up settle their affairs by contract all the time - they’re called separation agreements, and are enforced by the courts, just like other contracts. why is that a bad thing? should a couple that can agree on the terms of their separation nonetheless be forced to go to court, with all the attendant expenses? courts are to resolve disputes between the parties, not to be a state arbiter of the private lives of individuals. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/60 "2008-09-16T14:46:45Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > couples who are breaking up settle their affairs by contract all the time - they’re called separation agreements, and are enforced by the courts, just like other contracts. why is that a bad thing? should a couple that can agree on the terms of their separation nonetheless be forced to go to court, with all the attendant expenses? courts are to resolve disputes between the parties, not to be a state arbiter of the private lives of individuals. And an ‘arbitration service’ rooted in a system that gives unequal weight to genders, gives them differing rights and responsibilities? Like with inheritance? Like with divorce? [We want to offer sharia in UK](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576066/%27We-want-to-offer-sharia-law-to-Britain%27.html) > [@](#): > > There are also issues around the Islamic approach to equality and human rights that make integration with British law problematic and contentious. > > Sharia judges in this country deal mainly with divorce - khula. In Islamic law, a husband can divorce his wife in the presence of two witnesses without having to go through an official system. > > He can even merely utter the word “talaq” - meaning “to release” - to gain a divorce, whether or not the wife accepts it. She has no such right and must go through the processes of sharia, entreating judges to grant her divorce. And from the original Times article. > [@](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727.md?page=4)