Gender Equality in Sharia Courts?

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation.” You can find more of her articles on www.vigilancenow.org


Pages: 1 2

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women.  Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.

Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.  Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time.  However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals.  Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts.  Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.

According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain.  The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues.  However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence.  By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”

The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

In terms of mediation efforts, Sharia Courts often merely hand the parties pre-determined outcomes that comport with the laws of Sharia and request both parties to sign consent forms.  Then, the forms are submitted to the Family Court on the false premise that the terms were truly negotiated by the parties involved.

To make matters worse, many Muslim marriages take place solely under religious ceremonies and are not registered with the state as required by the Marriage Act of 1949.  Thus, these “marriages” are not civilly recognized and the “wives” are not afforded any legal protections.  Interestingly, the problem of non-registration appears only in the Muslim community.  Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.

Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK.  Because many Muslim immigrants are illiterate, the women are unaware of their rights under British law.  It is legal to consent to arbitration if the acquiescence is voluntary.  However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts. Thus, it is not truly voluntary.

Pages: 1 2

  • Lfox328

    Why does Britain even allow unregistered marriages? All persons conducting marriages should be required, by law, to submit the registration forms to the legal authorities. Otherwise, the institutions are permitting multiple marriages, with the sanction of the state.

    • rasmus

      It does'nt allow them – if a marriage is not registered it is not legally a marriage, it's just a lover, girlfriend, person you cohabit with etc. If a woman wants the rights that comes with a marriage she must insist on registering it as such.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        It does'nt allow them – if a marriage is not registered it is not legally a marriage, it's just a lover, girlfriend, person you cohabit with etc. If a woman wants the rights that comes with a marriage she must insist on registering it as such.

        Actually, whether a marriage is registered with British authorities or not, under Sharia it is nonetheless recognized. Nevertheless, Muslims won’t register their marriages with the British authorities since as for as Muslims are concerned, British laws as opposed to Sharia are an abomination that eventually must be destroyed, as Muslims don’t recognize or adhere to any other law other than Sharia as to do so would constitute blasphemy, which is a capital offense under Islam.

        Furthermore, if Muslims report their marriages to the British authorities to get divorced they will be forced to go through the British courts. Whereas under Sharia a Muslim male can divorce Muslim females by simply saying I divorce thee twice, and since the British welfare system is already picking up the tab for any children that were born since they are unaware of the marriage, he is free to get married to another Muslim female right away. Thus, there are many incentives not to report the marriages.

        In addition, if a Muslim female notifies British authorities per British law, that Muslim female is guilty of blasphemy, which is a capital offense under Islam.

  • Rasmus

    Obviously, I agree with the intentions of this law, but logically the muslim clerics have a point. You state: "Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK." Why on earth should a muslim woman wish to escape Sharia? It is an integral part of her religion which she in the UK freely chooses to remain a part of. If she is forced into a relationship it is a police matter of kidnapping, enslavement etc. But I do think we should keep the concepts straight here. People who believe in all sorts of weird stuff freely goes into horrid relationships based on this and end up being beaten, have their money stolen, children hurt etc. Sadly, a free society cannot protect people from themselves.
    And so they make alliances in private like young people who get engaged or members of a cult who invent relationship categories on their own – playing around is their right and if they do not wish to consent to a state sanctioned marriage contract and what this entails they are free to not register (common law wife/husbands law might apply though.). If you choose not to register it is simply not a marriage in the eyes of the law no matter what you religion.

    • aspacia

      Rasmus, you are a moral relativist. Carefully read the various interpretations of Sharia, to understand that these women are forced into numerous illegal situations because they fear their families and Allah's hell. Since the burka ban, Muslims tourism to France has increased. Canadian Muslim women were outraged regarding the Islamic male clerics attempts to impose Sharia Law, and stopped it cold.

      To permit any citizen to live in fear violates most British beliefs in freedom. Anymore, the UK is so regulated, and is on the verge of moral collapse. Most have no sense of right and wrong anymore. Most make excuses, as you do regarding the huge illegalities of Sharia to be pc, when in fact your tolerance of the intolerant will lead to your enslavement.

      • WLIL

        What have those moslems women done to reduce fear for islamic misbehaviours ? Nothing signinficant so far. If those moslems were really victimised by their beloved sharia, they should try to use their own resources in their own countries of origin to help themselves, instead of preying on us nonbelievers or on the western world to help them and only in return to unfairly and unreasonably impose it on the west. aspacia, I think you are naively giving excuses for the moslem women/men to impose their sharia related problems on the west.

      • rasmus

        I am not a moral relativist(do you even know what that is?) – on the contrary. That insult is unfounded.
        These women choose Islam! In the UK they are free to choose to be atheists, Goth or whatever. If someone forces them, they can always call the police. This is a society of laws. if they are mentally retarded and lured into doing stuff because they fear the devil and things like that then of course it is a police matter – but are you arguing that that is the case generally? Are we not talking about regular grown smart women?
        I pity all people who suffer but these women wants to have it both ways: the want the protection of a Western society, based on Western norms, judeo-christian respect for women(all these being absolute moral standards) and a level of justice and policing which can only function in a highly civilized society with low crime rates. At the same time they freely (!) chose to remain part of these cultural entities: they vote for their politicians, they actively attend every activity supportive of Islam, they raise their children in Islam, they demonstrate for the decapitation of cartoonist who have drawn M etc. They have cell-phones, walk around freely etc and can at any time contact one of our numerous shelters and be picked up, protected, equipped with new identities etc. -hardly any choose to do so.
        You talk about these women as if they were inferior beings incapable of making adult decisions and take responsibility for them. They freely and knowingly chose Islam, like the beaten wife chooses her wife beater, and until they leave there is precious little we can do to help them in a society of laws. This has nothing to do with moral relativism.You cannot practically inflict equality on a society of millions of people who actively work against it and the officers meant to enforce it. It's impossible given our civil rights (forced conversions etc. are outlawed).
        If you believe true respect for women is compatible with Islam (Aisha, 6 years old when traded like a cattle and 9 when….) then sure, work from the inside. If you think you are only helping these women lie to themselves and thereby prolong the pain, then you should backtrack from your position. Fighting for freedom hurts, and if these women want it it is going to hurt them too. They will have to give up their ideology and feeling of being better than Christians etc, often they will be hated by their families, shunned, they might have to work to provide for themselves etc etc. And very few are choosing to pay that price.

        • Tamzin

          Unfortunately, one doesn't choose Islam! You are born into that world and then you live it and you submit to it. Sharia is a fundamental legal interpretation of Islam. Not all Muslim countries apply Sharia. Some apply only parts of it. Still others interpret the Sharia law to mean full rights to men and none to women. It is not really a legal just system as it, inevitably only applies to Muslims for rights and all others are expected to submit to it.

          If you live in an Islamic country, as a Christian or Jew or atheist you are obliged to submit to Islamic (sometimes Sharia) law. I think it is only fair that Muslims living in Britain submit to British law and not expect a special law just for them.

          What's next? A law for Christians, another for Jews and perhaps no laws for atheists?

          Freedom doesn't permit another to take away the freedoms of his brethren. So the clerics arguing that British freedom should permit women to be mistreated under 'freedom' is a misunderstanding of what freedom means.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      "Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK."

      That’s utterly absurd. In the Islamic world Muslim females can’t even leave the home without a male family member escorting them much less migrate to the West to escape Sharia. Some of the naive assumptions people make about Islam are really very hilarious.

      Why on earth should a muslim woman wish to escape Sharia? It is an integral part of her religion which she in the UK freely chooses to remain a part of. If she is forced into a relationship it is a police matter of kidnapping, enslavement etc.

      Islam is a cult of submission that requires all adherents to submit fully to the will of Allah, and once a Muslim always a Muslim, as apostasy and blasphemy under Islam are capital offenses since the freedom of conscience is severely restricted and enforced via the pain of death. Hence, even if Muslim females wished to escape Sharia they would suffer the consequences. Otherwise, they could live like the courageous Muslim apostate – Ayaan Hirsi Ali – if they can afford to pay bodyguards.

      • rasmus

        The first quote is from the article, not from me. I agree that it is absurd – that's why I quoted it. Maybe we actually agree?
        The dictate that 'once a muslim always a muslim' is a part of actually believing in Islam. If you abandon Islam you are free to believe whatever you want.
        Muslim women who wish to escape their families tyranny are offered plenty of protection in all of Western Europe, including new identities, but they usually chose to return to their families and at this point they risk honor-killings. Women who arrive here requesting asylum stating they are fleeing the consequences of Sharia, usually become super-muslim as soon as they get their residency and then have their families shipped up here.

  • JosephWiess

    Hello England. Muslim courts stand in direct contradiction to the Magna Carta and sets the path for people not following your laws.
    Do you want to be England or Londinastan?

  • WLIL

    I am a nonbeliever and I find it nauseating when a woman(whom I came across while working ) indirectly bragged about her advantage on being a moslem women.
    And of course I have to agree with her since the asian country that she is from, is predominantly islamic, and their islamic tribes were given so much special privileges and so much preferential treatment, irregardless whether they are women or men, since post independence, and the fact that many of them became rich due to their then newly acquired post independence supremacist islamic dominance via their malay ethnicity..
    Therfore I find this article unbelievablely naive in trying to assert that moslem women are somehow weaker and in need of help when in reality they like most poverty stricken community are most probably only finding fault with their own community when their own community failed to help them in any way.

    • aspacia

      First, there is no such word as irregardless, it is regardless. Second, freedom loving people need to quit make apologies for the intolerant, misogynistic and violent Muslim practices. Start focusing on the Muslim majority lands, and leave Israel alone.

      Naive? Women and nonMuslims are weaker under Sharia Law in any Islamic country. This is a fact, and if you do not understand this fact, it is your who is naive.

      • WLIL

        I am such a freedom loving people who hate being being told that moslems women are weaker when they and their moslems men are most of the times are bullies, when they have the opportunities, like many nasty people, Then why are those well off islamic women and islamic men bragging about their islamic culture and their sharia? I never mention about Israel. I just oppose being manipulated by rich or poor moslems and I am not making any apologies for those moslem people who behaved badly. I think they don't need to bring their sharia burden to the West or burden the West further with their sharia. . All those peopole who tried to pander to moslems women/men and other eastern immigrants by trying to give the excuse that they are in need of help, while they go on being big bullies in their countries of origins are just naive. I hate it if anyone, knowingly or unknowingly, make use of their moslem women gender to further their islamic or sharia cause. I am not naive. I am just discussng another point view to prevent us nonbelievers from being misled by any moslem, be they men or women.

        • generalissimo

          this is not just about protecting those "poor weak muslim women"; this is about stoping the encroaching sharia in the West. A civilization cannot be half-free; it cannot have second class citizens. That's what this law is about. It's not infantilizing women of other cultural backgrounds. It's about "one law for all".

          Also IMO, this is not about "us nonbelievers against muslims"; I believe in many things, but religion isn't one of them. Still, I'd rather have a Christian or Jew world than a muslim one. Let's not alienate the believing population, which is increasingly under-represented in the West. Right now this is about preserving our rule of law and not caving in to 7th century practices of an alien minority at the expense of everybody else. A minority that refuses to integrate but seeks to desintegrate is NOT welcome here.

          • WLIL

            That is what I am trying to say that while some well off moslems women are known to arrogantly bragged about their islamic advantages or even theit islamic dressing or their socalled high status as islamic women, there are many other less well off islamic women who used their islamic caused problems or socalled disadvantaged as immigrants to spread their islamic ideology indirectly via their encroaching presense or islamic problems in the West.

          • rasmus

            You write "Right now this is about preserving our rule of law" and that would be super, but there is no way this law will achieve that. I'm sure we agree about most in this debate, and this law is brilliant for raising the debate, but it will not change much. You have to understand that Jews and Christians and atheists with Jewish or Christian background register their marriages because the laws governing this are in accordance with our values and beliefs – the reason the Muslims do not register is that they are in utter complete contradiction with everything a 'Muslim marriage' entails, as it is based on sharia law. They never have any intention of complying, and if a woman one day changes her mind (when the husband divorces her and she in accordance with the sharia laws she married him under loses her children and money) turns to the courts she will of course get protection. But she won't do that because she will be outcast from her society, maybe her children or siblings will be punished for her crimes, she will be threatened. The trick is to get these women to make up their minds before they 'marry' – right now we are not doing them any favors by letting them think it is possible to protect them. This is like having a cult of several million members living in our society – no cute little law will establish a society of our laws among them – often the police cannot even enter these areas! Each member will have to choose to be in or out, and often, like leaving a cult and your friends there, it will be painful. Staying seems to be worse. This law lets them falsely believe that there is a pain-free solution, to be handed to them by the West.

      • WLIL

        And by the way, I, as nonbeliever feel that one should focus on any country, be they moslem majority or not, that pose a threat to our western freedom and western civilisation. And so what, if there is no such word as irregardless. That is not end of the world. And i have another suspicion that sharia, not only is discriminatory but appear to benefit only rich moslems, whatever gender they may be.

      • WLIL

        And of course, freedom loving people of various other faiths or nonfaith don't need to make any apology for any misbehaviours that was committed by islamics. It is the moslems themselves that have have to apologize for their own moslems individual misbehaviour. Even if those arrogant moslems apologise, which is unlikely, it will be up to individuals of various other faiths or nonfaith or other international community to accept or not to accept the (nonexistent?) apologies.

  • AntiSharia

    This is only the beginning. First its "voluntary" sharia courts, then it's compulsory sharia courts for the Muslim community, then it's Sharia law for everyone. Sharia is a totalitarian nightmare. Orwell couldn't have come up with a more brutal system. Anyone who thinks that Sharia is moderate and doesn't represent a threat to the west is only deluding themselves and putting people at risk.

    • Tamzin

      I totally agree!

  • LindaRivera

    It is extremely shocking that Britain (and other European countries) allowed sharia law courts to be set up. Every sharia law court in NON-Muslim countries must be shut down.

    In civilization (non-Muslim countries) EVERYONE is equal under the law. There must be no compromise. Freedom and human rights must be protected! This is what our brave heroes in so many wars fought and died for.

    If Muslims want to live under Islamic sharia law, they are FREE to move to any one of 56 Muslim countries.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      It is extremely shocking that Britain (and other European countries) allowed sharia law courts to be set up. Every sharia law court in NON-Muslim countries must be shut down.

      They will just go underground. I agree Sharia should never be allowed, but the reality is Sharia, just like Jihad, is intrinsic to Islam. Hence, you can’t import Muslims into your country without also importing Sharia and Jihad at the same time.

      In civilization (non-Muslim countries) EVERYONE is equal under the law. There must be no compromise. Freedom and human rights must be protected! This is what our brave heroes in so many wars fought and died for.

      Of course, you know this already, but in stark contrast Islam divides the world between believers and unbelievers and applies one set of rules and ethics for believers and a completely different set of rules and ethics for unbelievers.

    • rasmus

      I agree with you, but they are exploiting a loophole in the law, they have not actually 'been allowed'. Also, banning stuff like that might be difficult in a free society – people are free to make contracts about most things and of course you can meet in your group of people in private and settle matters. If the victims of these 'courts' do not turn to the police it is difficult to act just like when victims of domestic violence will not report it and continue to return to their violator. The situation stinks.
      I fear that this law contributes to the severity of the situation, because it makes Muslim women think that they can have their ideology and peace with their community and at the same time enjoy the protection of a Western woman(something I think is incompatible with Islam). So they will with this law keep 'marrying' privately and falsely believe that the UK society can keep them safe.

  • Raymond in DC

    Creeping sharia, no-go zones, tolerated polygamy, special accommodations – they're all consistent with the "stealth jihad". This will not end well.

  • steven l

    Reforming Sharia from outside, inside GB!
    Sharia must comply with the country laws.

  • Ghostwriter

    Gender Equality? In Sharia courts? That's laughable.
    (Short laugh to ilustrate my point.)

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration.

    Which was an exceedingly gullible and stupid concession to make as all Muslims under the pain of death only adhere to Sharia. Hence, of course, all Muslims will automatically agree on the tribunal, will be willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration. If not, then they are blasphemous apostates that per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.

    That’s the rub…Judaism and Christianity are true faith-based religions, Islam, on the other hand, in reality really is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology masquerading as a religion to dupe the societies it fully intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia. Which is why the majority of Muslim immigrants, no matter what country it is in, like clockwork always refuses to assimilate and integrate and instead form segregated Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as parallel societies within societies and in direct contravention to the laws of the states in which they reside, because Muslims don’t immigrate to the West to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate.

    However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts.

    As I mentioned above, Muslims are obligated to adhere only to Sharia, as Sharia is the will of Allah, and the first requirement of Islam is submission to the will of Allah. Indeed, the word Islam in Arabic means submission and the word Muslim in Arabic means one who submits. Hence, any Muslim that refuses to submit to Sharia, that is refuses to submit to the will of Allah, isn’t a Muslim at all but a blasphemous apostate and per the dictates of Islam must be executed.

    Thus, it is not truly voluntary.

    Nah…it’s mandatory and enforced under the pain of death.

    Finally, the bill mandates that in unregistered marriages, public authorities must inform the parties that they are required to register their marriages in order to secure legal rights.

    Isn’t going to happen, as again blasphemy and apostasy are capital offenses under Islam.

    In other words, the bill requires Sharia Courts to acknowledge the priority of British law over Sharia law when the two conflict, and to preserve the British values of human rights and equality for women.

    Again, never going to happen in a million years. Muslims consider all man made laws to be abominations that must eventually be destroyed. Since man made laws emanate from mortal men as opposed to Allah, they are inherently inferior to Sharia, which emanates directly from Allah, which makes Sharia divine and perfectly just.

    Hence, if a female’s testimony is worth only half that of a male’s or if a female’s inheritance is worth only half that of a male’s, then that is just according to Sharia. A Muslim can’t question or challenge the will of Allah, because again that is blasphemous, which is a capital offense. Indeed, Islam is first and foremost a cult of submission, as each Muslim must submit to the will of Allah, or otherwise be executed for apostasy.

    It comes on the foot-heels of the Home Secretary’s admission that Britain’s anti-terrorism program failed to recognize the extent of radical Islamist ideology and its influence in Britain, and an acknowledgment of Britain’s continuing problems of lack of integration and assimilation by the Islamic community. It is therefore no surprise that some Muslims are complaining about this legislation.

    I hate to rain on the Home Secretary’s clueless parade, but in Islam adherence to Sharia couldn’t be anymore orthodox and mainstream. Anyway, after many years, finally the UK is in the earliest stages of beginning to recognize the problem, but it still has a very long way to go. I wish I could say the same for the USA.

    The fact is no amount of legislating will stop Muslims from submitting to the will of Allah by adhering to Sharia, as Islam is first and foremost a cult of submission. Hence, the only solution is for the West to simultaneously ban and reverse Muslim immigration with its excess baggage ASAP, as again open your eyes and look around the world, Muslims don’t immigrate to the West to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate.

    • rasmus

      Yes! You are so right! The cute intentions of this law will never ever have any impact. It is un-enforcable (word?), ignorant of the reality of these communities etc etc. brilliant analysis! They want to believe that these groups will start behaving civilized towards women if only included under western legislation – of course they wont! They hold Western legislation in utter contempt and will do all in their power to avoid complying with it. (though, the women might regret that choice when the 'husband' decides to 'divorce' them, take their children, their money, outcast them from the community etc.)

  • ObamaYoMoma

    But, the foreigners who are duped into this don't know it. �As far as they are concerned, it's a true marriage. �By allowing religious institutions to conduct these fake marriages, the state is facilitating fraud.
    The imans involved should be imprisoned, and, if not a subject, deporte

    That’s ludicrous. Muslims consider all man made laws to be abominations that must eventually be destroyed. Hence, Muslims could care less about British or any other law, for that matter, that isn’t Sharia.

    Islam isn’t a religious institution. Instead, it is a supremacist theo-political totalitarian ideology that masquerades as being a religion to dupe the societies it intends to subjugate into a very draconian form of Islamic totalitarianism via the imposition of Sharia.

    Indeed, the oppressive treatment of females as illustrated in this article, is an example of the kind of draconian totalitarianism that Islam is seeking to impose via the imposition of Sharia.

    The imans involved should be imprisoned, and, if not a subject, deporte

    How will Imams be imprisoned if all the parties involved deny the marriage ever took place in the first place and the government has not been notified of the marriage? Indeed, under Sharia Muslim males can marry up to four females simultaneously, and Muslim stealth jihadists living in non-Muslim countries use their females as baby factories, as their sole purpose for migrating to the West is to eventually impose Sharia via demographic conquest.

    In addition, as for as the British government is concerned, since they haven’t been informed of the marriage, to them those Muslim females having all those babies are having all those babies out of wedlock and as unwed mothers. Hence, the British welfare system is responsible for picking up the tab.

    Furthermore, when Muslim females born in the UK reach marriageable age, they are then shipped back abroad to be married to Muslim males in arranged marriages, which opens the door for them to migrate to the UK, whereby they will then secretly marry four females that will again be used as baby factories. Of course, when the females reach the age where they can’t bare any more children, they are then divorced and a new female takes their place.

    The truth is there is only one solution, ban and reverse Muslim immigration along with its excess baggage ASAP.

  • rasmus

    Often it is not religious institutions but simply self-proclaimed Imams who conduct these rituals in their apartments or backyards. They carry no more legal weight than when I decide to knight my buddies. And sure they dupe a lot of people who are too young or dumb to get it – in Denmark they 'marry' young, Danish teenage girls to old pigs and then convince them that they cannot get a 'divorce'(they aren't legally married so all this is lies) because it was a muslim ritual. But these are criminal matters for the police, social services matters for these abused minors etc. The problem is that authorities cannot and will not enforce the regular norms of society – these people are too many, too lying carrying extreme investigative burdens, the legal processes too long and heavy and the sentences too short. We are finding ourselves incapable of addressing these problems through law.

  • anolesman

    I hate when so many American men and women died in World War II defending Great Britain from Nazi Germany and now seeing it turn slowly into a Muslim/English Country.
    What has happen to the British people and the love for THEIR COUNTRY? Have they no shame?

    • SpiritOf1683

      And America is slowly but surely catching up, if Dearbornistan is anything to go by.

  • http://www.pilcrowpress.com Kathryn, London, UK

    On the subject of choice and Shari'ah Councils/Shari'ah Arbitration Tribunals:

    –If Muslim men were to consent to their marriages being registered under English Law, their women would truly have a "choice" as to whether to go to the Shari'ah Council or the English Court

    –If Muslims say that we should recognise their (sometimes polygamous) marriages, why won't they recognise an English divorce from an English court (in the case of registered marriages–there are some).

    –If you're born into a Muslim family, you have not choice–you're either a Muslim or an "apostate". If you're an "apostate", your evidence in a Shari'ah Council is worth nothing and they would recommend the death penalty for you. So much for choice of religion! What if you were married to a Muslim and they drag you into a Shari'ah Council? You lose your children, accommodation, assests, everything.

    A couple of points of information:

    In civil (as opposed to criminal) cases in England, we do not have juries anyway. We only have juries in criminal trials.

    Also, the British government does not enforce any judgments, still less Shari'ah Councils' judgments, although if they appear to have resulted in an agreement that complies with the Arbitration Act 1996, the civil courts may enaforce it. Likewise a "mediated" settlement.

    Otherwise a great article.

    I would recommend that if people want to keep an eye on this Bill, they check out this web page: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/arbit

    Also, I recommend the books on the Pilcrow Press site for insider information on political Islam.

    • rasmus

      I don't really get how you guys imagine it will solve any problems. Will you let wife number 2-4 also register their 'marriage'? That would obviously mean that you expand recognition of polygamy even more than you have already done.
      And if a woman is dragged, forced etc. it is a criminal police matter covering several paragraphs. A law stating that you should be informed about the option to register a marriage will not keep violent, criminal, misogynist from mistreating women. The choices and freedom of Muslim women are limited by the level of tyranny and violence their male relatives exercise, just like the freedom of any woman with such family members. She will have to flee, her neighbors to contact the police to come and liberate her etc. It is not a matter of what was said at some ritual – it is a criminal matter.
      If she is not actually forced, if she chooses that life, there is virtually nothing we can do in a society of laws. Just like the woman who stays with her violent husband cannot be helped until she decides to testify etc.
      This is an age-old problem, not a technicality, but suddenly a problem actively practiced by millions of people in the middle of our society.

  • palidin 911

    England has turned into a nation of metro-sexual wimps. This proposal won't go anywhere, It might p!ss off the Muslims.
    Besides, what self respecting hadji thug is going to let his b!tch have any rights other than those granted by him.

  • http://www.good.is/posts/remedios-naturales-para los remedios naturales

    Genuinely no matter if someone doesn’t know afterward its up to other users that they will help, so here it takes place.