# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/101 "2008-09-19T12:14:54Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The rest of your list is equally misleading and seems to have been taken from one of the many anti-Islam sites that have popped up in the last few years that either denigrate or dismiss actual contributions for the purpose of pretending that Europenas did everything on their own. _::: shrug :::_ That’s misrepresentation. I made no such claim. If you read my post properly you’d find due credit was given to Hindus. Hindus are not European. For an alternative view of Islamic contributions to science you might consider this response by an Assyrian (not European) Peter BetBasoo of September 2001 following a speech delivered by the then CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina. [http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm](http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm) Fiorina’s speech was along the lines of: > [@](#): > > “There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world. > It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.” And so on and so forth, in very glowing terms. Much like your post. The Assyrian and other non Muslim communities in Iraq, now down to less than 800,000, are in mortal danger. However, I suspect that you and George Bush have something in common. You both fervently believe that the Christian, and other non Muslim, communities in that region are perfectly safe. In George Bush’s case, it’s probably because he believes that Iraq is now a “democracy”. Rule of law and all that. Yes, I know, GW is an imbecile. In your case? Perhaps you believe they’re safe because they’re a minority group in a Muslim country. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/102 "2008-09-19T13:17:51Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Those of us not addicted to building strawmen as a hobby recognise the subtle yet crucial difference between not allowing the in ‘courts’ convened under an illiberal ideology that treats one gender as unequal socially and legally and not allowing those rights at all. Those of us who understand the concept of private arbitration know that it is a voluntary procedure, born from the concept of contract; that adult parties are considered to be the best guardians of their own interests; and that generally they are permitted to contract to any otherwise legal methods to resolve that dispute. Sharia is oppressive to women. But treating women who grow up in a Sharia influenced culture as children incapable of determining their own rights is insulting. If you can demonstrate that a person was unduly pressured into agreeing to a particular arbitration method, then that individual contract is voidable. But that is no reason to take an entire group of individuals and decide you have the right to limit their options. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/103 "2008-09-19T13:25:50Z")
> [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > That’s misrepresentation. I made no such claim. If you read my post properly you’d find due credit was given to Hindus. > > Hindus are not European. Nevertheless, you had to pretend that the Islamic society had no part in the transfer of that knowledge along with ignoring the contributions to Algebra and other aspects of mathematics. And the “Europeans only” comment was directed toward the web sites, not necessarily to you. > [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > For an alternative view of Islamic contributions to science you might consider this response by an Assyrian (not European) Peter BetBasoo of September 2001 following a speech delivered by the then CEO of Hewlett Packard, Carly Fiorina. > > [http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm](http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm) So, you find one letter (lacking any supporting documentation) written by a Christian member of an ethnic minority in an Arab land who wanders down history dismissing every achievement of Islamic society. How is this substantially different than an anti-Muslim web site? It reminds me very much of the handful of polemecists who, reacting to the very real subjugation and persecution of black peoples, have attempted to re-write history to claim that all Egyptian and Greek and Meso-American civilizations were stolen from black societies and that every human developent west of the Himalayas is actually African. Very real persecutions are still not a valid basis for completely re-writing history. (Congratulations for having found an anti-Islam site that was not Eurocentric, I guess.) > [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > Assyrian and other non Muslim communities in Iraq, now down to less than 800,000, are in mortal danger. However, I suspect that you and George Bush have something in common. You both fervently believe that the Christian, and other non Muslim, communities in that region are perfectly safe. > > In George Bush’s case, it’s probably because he believes that Iraq is now a “democracy”. Rule of law and all that. > > Yes, I know, GW is an imbecile. > > In your case? Perhaps you believe they’re safe because they’re a minority group in a Muslim country. When you get done playing with that straw, I know several 100+ cattle farms that could use the bedding this coming winter. Nothing I have posted can be construed to claim that the Arab cultures are currently hospitable ones to minorities. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/104 "2008-09-19T13:51:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Those of us who understand the concept of private arbitration know that it is a voluntary procedure, born from the concept of contract; that adult parties are considered to be the best guardians of their own interests; and that generally they are permitted to contract to any otherwise legal methods to resolve that dispute. > > Sharia is oppressive to women. But treating women who grow up in a Sharia influenced culture as children incapable of determining their own rights is insulting. If you can demonstrate that a person was unduly pressured into agreeing to a particular arbitration method, then that individual contract is voidable. But that is no reason to take an entire group of individuals and decide you have the right to limit their options. Those of us with reading comprehension understand that the terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘arbitration’ are meaningless when one gender has been defined as having inferior rights and social position and those doing the ‘arbitrating’ fully share and support those biases. As for the rest of your post - save the liberal guilt tripping for someone who cares. I have real experience of how women are treated in this country under Islam. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/105 "2008-09-19T14:06:58Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Those of us with reading comprehension understand that the terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘arbitration’ are meaningless when one gender has been defined as having inferior rights and social position and those doing the ‘arbitrating’ fully share and support those biases. What on earth does that have to do with reading comprehension? Even if in a situation where one gender is defined as having inferior rights, and that view is shared by the arbitrators, it can still be entered into voluntarily. A woman may, for example, be born and raised outside of the Sharia culture, and convert to Islam, and chose, as part of a marriage, to submit differences to a Sharia court through arbitration. I think she sould be crazy to do that. But she might make that choice, for reasons which to her seemed totally rational. She might genuiniely believe that it provided the correct social structure. She might also believe that it was a form of prenuptual agreement - that she would receive sufficient benefits during the marriage that were not otherwise available to make such a switch worthwhile. You would take her right to make such a determination away. On the other hand, I would rely on the present law to invalidate arbitration agreements that were not entered into voluntarily. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/106 "2008-09-19T14:40:42Z")
I need clarification. If one party (who is or isn’t Muslim) voluntarily submits to arbitration feels they have been unfairly treated and refuses to submit to the ruling, does the government step in to enforce the ruling ? For example, can the other party use the services of the civil court to seize assets ? ---
**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 19, 2008, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/107 "2008-09-19T15:00:22Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Another beautifully constructed strawman. It’s not a strawman, it’s called induction. I am pointing out the implications of your attitude to freedom of contract. You can argue with the logic, or you can explain why one case is not like the other, but it is not a strawman because I did not attribute the argument to you; I simply took what appeared to be your premises to the logical conclusion. It’s also interesting that you’re quite happy to talk about people being set on fire, but pounce on even the slightest whiff of hyperbole in anyone else’s posts. This all seems aimed at avoiding engagement with the facts. Instead we’re supposed to trade in innuendo and stereotype, ignoring the implications of our pronouncements and opting instead for a kind of homeopathic approach to debate, in which the facts are so dilute that they’re hardly there at all. Did you know, for example, that the tribunal at the centre of the Times article is working with the CPS under incoming legislation to tackle forced marriage? Is committed to eradicating coercion from weddings in their community? Did you notice that a large part of their work in family law is in fact freeing women from civilly-ended marriages that their husbands refuse to annul religiously? You did not, because you did not bother to read word one regarding what the tribunal actually does. It may offend you that such inequity exists in the first place, but is it really preferable to forbid Muslims from dealing with it themselves? You put your indignation ahead of any real desire for improvement. No matter how much you dislike it, the facts are these: Muslims exist, and many of them prefer to interact according to Islamic principles. Where those principles do not conflict with UK law, it simply is not your place to tell people that they can not be trusted to choose how they interact. Handwaving such concerns away will not help any down-trodden Muslim women; indeed, as pointed out very early on in this conversation, if there’s oppression going on, surely it’ll be more identifiable at tribunal level. A body working with, rather than in parallel to, the main authorities is more visible, and thus more accountable. A benefit, no? For those carping about criminal cases, from the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal’s own [website](http://www.matribunal.com/): > [@Muslim Arbitration Tribunal](#): > > MAT is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK. However where there are criminal charges such as assault within the context of domestic violence, the parties will be able ask MAT to assist in reaching reconciliation which is observed and approved by MAT as an independent organisation. The terms of such a reconciliation can then be passed by MAT on to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) though the local Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officers with a view to reconsidering the criminal charges. Note that the final decision to prosecute always remains with the CPS. **The Flying Dutchman** , I linked to the text of the 1996 Arbitration act in my first post; the relevant sections appear to be 66 and 67. It appears that tribunal decisions are indeed enforceable with court powers, but that the party ruled against can appeal to the court on jurisdictional grounds, whereupon the court can uphold, modify or vacate the tribunal decision accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2008, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727/108 "2008-09-19T19:56:05Z")
Briefly, I wished to note that I have no stomach for the either the excuse mongering for Wiki or the Anti Semitic Anti Islamic bigotry on other fronts. Both require more effort than I can devote for proper responses. On the last, I can only say I am happy UK Gov is not in the hands of BN types posting here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britain-adopts-sharia-law-in-domestic-disputes-providing-both-parties-agree/463727.md?page=5)