Comments on: Responses to Civitas report on Shari’ah courts http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts Politics, tech and media issues from a Muslim perspective Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:41:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Kafirist http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11611 Kafirist Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:22:45 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11611 I'm not sure I'd equate a fatwa with simple advice. When Sharia law permits a man to beat his wife, etc., she clearly can be intimidated by her husband. So what is the likelihood that she would run to the British legal system for remedy in family disputes? Even if these tribunals were completely fair and equitable, their results apparently are never reviewed by British courts unless some complaint is made. So in that sense, they are secretive. Why allow even the question of secret, unfair resolutions to occur when the whole matter could be decided by legitimate British law? I’m not sure I’d equate a fatwa with simple advice. When Sharia law permits a man to beat his wife, etc., she clearly can be intimidated by her husband. So what is the likelihood that she would run to the British legal system for remedy in family disputes?

Even if these tribunals were completely fair and equitable, their results apparently are never reviewed by British courts unless some complaint is made. So in that sense, they are secretive.

Why allow even the question of secret, unfair resolutions to occur when the whole matter could be decided by legitimate British law?

]]> By: CampbellMoor http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11601 CampbellMoor Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:36:43 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11601 There is only one law for people living in this country. These courts have no jurisdiction - all they can do is advise what the course of action should be, in the case of disputes and such like, for those who wish to comply with their religious beliefs. Anyone who consider it wrong to offer advice, unless it co-incides with their own opinion is latently a tyrant. Maybe they are one already. If they took it upon themselves to take vigelante action, or to arrest people, then try and punish them, that would be an entirely different matter. There is only one law for people living in this country. These courts have no jurisdiction - all they can do is advise what the course of action should be, in the case of disputes and such like, for those who wish to comply with their religious beliefs.

Anyone who consider it wrong to offer advice, unless it co-incides with their own opinion is latently a tyrant. Maybe they are one already.

If they took it upon themselves to take vigelante action, or to arrest people, then try and punish them, that would be an entirely different matter.

]]> By: Kafirist http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11444 Kafirist Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:04:05 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11444 There should be no religious courts period. There should be one law for all the people living in the country and it should be secular. There should be no religious courts period. There should be one law for all the people living in the country and it should be secular.

]]> By: Amber http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11429 Amber Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:47:27 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11429 ' “a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment)”, which in fact it may not at all, because false imprisonment means physically preventing someone from leaving.' You don't have a problem then with the idea that '“a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent'" then? ’ “a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent (which may constitute false imprisonment)”, which in fact it may not at all, because false imprisonment means physically preventing someone from leaving.’

You don’t have a problem then with the idea that ‘“a woman may not leave her home without her husband’s consent’” then?

]]> By: Ali http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11407 Ali Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:26:14 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11407 If MATs are not legal, then what about the Jewish Beth Din 'courts'? They both seem to have the same status. So either they are both legal, or both are illegal. If MATs are not legal, then what about the Jewish Beth Din ‘courts’? They both seem to have the same status. So either they are both legal, or both are illegal.

]]> By: Yakoub Islam http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11384 Yakoub Islam Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:56:11 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2009/06/30/responses_to_civitas_report_on_shariah_courts#comment-11384 MacEoin has published a vile blog promoting his lame report on Guardian CiF: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/29/religion-islam-sharia-britain MacEoin has published a vile blog promoting his lame report on Guardian CiF:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm.....ia-britain

]]>