Posted on 02/08/2008 9:02:51 AM PST by pitinkie
Sharia law "courts" are already dealing with crime on the streets of London, it emerged today.
The revelation came after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, called for an "accommodation" with parts of the Islamic legal code in a speech which attracted widespread condemnation.
The Archbishop said parts of civil law could be dealt with under the sharia system but already some communities have gone much further - and it was revealed today that a teenage stabbing case among the Somali community in Woolwich had been dealt with by a sharia "trial".
Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager.
The victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.
A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim.
"All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."
An Islamic Council in Leyton also revealed that it had dealt with more than 7,000 divorces while sharia courts in the capital have settled hundreds of financial disputes.
Today's revelations came as controversy raged over Dr Williams's call for parts of sharia law to be adopted in Britain.
His comments were condemned by Downing Street, the Tories and the chairman of the Government's Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
They were described as a "recipe for chaos" by Culture Secretary Andy Burnham.
Along with the Islamic Council in Leyton, there are reports of at least two other sharia courts sitting in London.
There are also courts in a number of other areas of the country with high Muslim populations, including Dewsbury in West Yorkshire, Birmingham and Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
Most are understood to concentrate on divorce cases - although such judgments are not recognised in British law - as well as financial disputes.
Suhaib Hasan, a spokesman for the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, which was set up in 1982, said that he and his colleagues dealt with more than 200 cases a year, ranging from inheritance to marriage and divorce.
"From the beginning, people have wanted our services. More and more come back to us. Each month we deal with 20 cases," he said.
On its website, the Islamic Sharia Council warns those who use its services that the divorces it grants cannot invalidate a union under British civil law and advises that a separate civil divorce should be obtained.
As well as giving advice on legal matters, such as inheritance, the website also gives general guidance on Muslim practices including the need for beards and the need for women to cover themselves in public.
It also covers issues such as whether women should train as doctors.
It supports this as a "lesser evil", but suggests that training should take place at an all-female college and that future treatment should be given to "women only".
I generally support people's right to solve their differences amicably between themselves when all are consenting as long as it can't result in loss of a basic right (freedom, life). But I do worry about them supposedly handling divorces. There can be no true consent when the women are intimidated. I can easily see "You will consent to our court or you will be outcast, or the subject of an honor killing."
> If all the parties concerned are consenting, and it doesn’t violate English law.
I really don’t believe the victim consented to a stabbing.
Generally true, but if nobody wants to press criminal charges and the prosecutor doesn't want to waste his time, then there's not much that can be done. The community takes care of the problem itself.
Taking this to the simplistic: Imagine your kid and the neighbor's kid are friends but get in a fight in your back yard over a broken toy. That's criminal assault and battery, you could call the police and it gets solved in juvie. But you call the neighbor over and work it out yourselves, apologies and reparations for broken toys made.
Nice photo. It shows how good an actor Jack Nicholson actually was since he looked even crazier than this real-life lunatic.
bump
It didn’t violate English law because under English law, it is up to the victim whether or not to press charges against his or her assailants, he declined this and decided to arbitrate the matter with a Sharia court.
It’s no different to a neighbour who declines to press charges against a kid he caught stealing from his house, in favour of an arrangement wereby he is punished by having to perform chores for the neighbour for a month or something along those lines....
“Generally true, but if nobody wants to press criminal charges and the prosecutor doesn’t want to waste his time, then there’s not much that can be done. The community takes care of the problem itself.”
Here in Florida a stabbing is considered a felony. In felony cases the victim does not determine whether charges are filed, the state usually determines it.
Broken toys are significantly less serious than an attempted murder.
We also have Jewish courts and have done for centuries.
If the knifeman comes to an English court and is convicted, then he'll go to jail, the decision of the Sharia court notwithstanding.
Yikes..from their website:
“We are corresponding with Timesonline to clarify which “sharia council” was referred to in the article (as there are many “sharia council’s” operating in UK).”
..many...
But my point is that the Sharia court should never be allowed to use force to implement its decision, and death certainly disqualifies.
That's not entirely true, the police can offer the decision to the victim at their discretion but they can still prosecute, without the co-operation of the victim, if they consider there is a public safety issue, which, in case of their being a knife wielding maniac who is prepared to seriously wound or kill someone, I would say there is a good case.
How, otherwise, would you prosecute a murder? Murder victims NEVER press charges.
Bzactly. If my neighborhood organization wants to judge against my poor gardening, they can haul me before their tribunal at risk of expulsion from the next lemonade party.
Civil Society relies on organizations (religious, community, volunteer, social, etc.) to adjudicate their own internal disputes that don’t infringe on society’s civil / criminal laws. Without that ability, the courts would be overrun.
In some ways, this occurs in America, where folks will sue over a hang nail.
..many...
Yes, just as there are many Jewish Orthodox courts operating within the UK.
In English law, people involved in a non-criminal dispute may solve it in their own way in front of an agreed third party. This is as true for a Sharia Court as it is for a Jewish one.
That's why I said if the prosecutor isn't interested. Of course any private arrangement cannot preempt the larger right of the people to prosecute for a crime should they, through their officials, wish to do so. Should the criminal wish to maintain good relations with his community then he can subject himself to the local court in addition to whatever the government does. It would, in essence, be an arbitrated civil suit (I've already ruled out such community courts being able to dispense punishments that are reserved for the state). Any such community court should probably file the proper legal paperwork with the civil courts to show that a complaint was brought and arbitrated, thus making the judgment legally binding.
Broken toys are significantly less serious than an attempted murder.
I said it was simplistic, just trying to get the point across of how people already handle crimes in their daily lives without involving the authorities.
Yeah, don’t know that much about English law, but ours came from it,
and ours says that a crime against a person is a crime against the state.
SILENCE! I KILL YOU!
Meaning: They are the most threatening, and the Brits are becoming a bunch of wusses.
My post #16 mentioned an old saying "A foot in the door". What ever is conceded to the Islamic presence, has never for one minute simply ended there. When that is allowed and this is allowed, it just does not stop.
The English hospital that is now forced to have staff, turn Islamic patients beds five times a day, seems to prove that. They are laughing (if they laugh) up their sleeves at all of us.
In Islamic countries, try even tippling a few adult beverages etc. Maybe make the sign of the cross, though this I have no idea of. I hope my feeling of depression will easily evaporate.
PS. I bowled lousy but my team won. (Laughs)
sorry you had a lousy game but glad you won!
A Sharia court does not need to proclaim a death penalty. It just needs to decree that "so-and-so is an apostate", and the killing will be carried out informally. Like Theo van Gogh. Like any of a bunch of "honor killings". Things do not need to be spelled out
The legitimized existence of a Sharia court, in itself, constitutes "undue influence" upon all Muslims within its reach
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.