When I saw the title of this I felt like there was a lot of potential for hearing some sort of negative story but I was pleasantly surprised:
Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.
Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”
In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”
He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.
Times
It is actually good to see a situation where we are seeing courts honor oral contracts that would give great benefits to a large amount of honest people that are purposefully taken advantage of by nefarious business partners.
It is always interesting to see how religion is sometimes capable of dispensing with justice much better than secular means as secular courts are forced to often ignore the spirit of the law and instead press ahead and prosecute the innocent.
Overall, people should consider this as a better, alternative means.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
“The egalitarian mania of demagogues is even more dangerous than the brutality of men in gallooned coats... Anyone who has been oppressed can get back on his feet if the oppression did not cost him his life. A man who has been equalized is physically and morally ruined." - Ernst Jünger (March 29, 1895 – February 17, 1998)
Just a small point. Oral contracts are binding in the U.S. The issue is proving the contract and what was said, or the ability of one of the parties to make such a contract. If you have a contract with a bans and that contract says there can not be any oral modifications then any such agreements are something the person you were talking to are not binding on the bank, as the person had no authority to do so (and you should have known it because the contract says so).
What I find the most gratifying is that this post has been up for ten hours and no-one has completely ignored the minor matter that it is a court of arbitration (that both parties have to agree to abide by the verdict of before it starts) and started ranting about how europe is being over-run by Islam and we should all head for the hills.
Whereas it's about as sinister as the Beth Din (Jewish court of arbitration) that has been operating in London for about the last three hundred years...
__________________ Ninety-nine out of a hundred dreams came crashing down around you. But if life always fell short of your expectations, that was no argument for lowering them. There was always the hundredth dream.
All I can say is I wouldn't recommend using the court if you're part of the female half of the species. Under Sharia law, you rank somewhere between a peasant and the dung on the bottom of said peasant's boots if you were born with that plumbing.
What I find the most gratifying is that this post has been up for ten hours and no-one has completely ignored the minor matter that it is a court of arbitration (that both parties have to agree to abide by the verdict of before it starts) and started ranting about how europe is being over-run by Islam and we should all head for the hills.
Whereas it's about as sinister as the Beth Din (Jewish court of arbitration) that has been operating in London for about the last three hundred years...
Surprised me, too. When i clicked this thread (without reading the thead author) I was assuming it was going to be some WND/newsmax "article" that wouldn't even bother mentioning the fact that it's all voluntary.
Location: Stationed in Germany, but originally from the United States
Posts: 8,599
Blessings: 50,628
My Mood
Reps: 24,007,431,011,056 (power: 24,007,431,024)
Originally Posted by TheNewWorldMan
All I can say is I wouldn't recommend using the court if you're part of the female half of the species. Under Sharia law, you rank somewhere between a peasant and the dung on the bottom of said peasant's boots if you were born with that plumbing.
What's your address? I'll have a Muslim bookstore e-mail you a book titled: "Islam. Beliefs and Teachings." Maybe then, you'll have a better understanding of Islam.
__________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
What's your address? I'll have a Muslim bookstore e-mail you a book titled: "Islam. Beliefs and Teachings." Maybe then, you'll have a better understanding of Islam.
What we have here is the classic difference between theory and how a theory inevitably ends up being practiced. Kind of like Marxism. Karl Marx didn't write anything about firing squads or gulags, but those have been the inevitable outcome of communism as practiced in the real world.
Likewise, Islam teaches that women are substantially inferior to men, and that female sexuality is somehow evil. Therefore, when Islam is put into practice, you'll see rapes and stonings and women generally treated like crap, even if those behaviors are not specifically called for in the Koran. Why? Because give a group of people a superiority complex--i.e., men, white people, left-handed redheads, whatever--and a divine mandate, and they'll turn into the worst kind of tin-horn dictators. It's human nature.
So sorry, but your little electronic black book isn't going to explain that away any more than Das Kapital can put the Gulag Archipelago into perspective.
Location: Stationed in Germany, but originally from the United States
Posts: 8,599
Blessings: 50,628
My Mood
Reps: 24,007,431,011,056 (power: 24,007,431,024)
Originally Posted by TheNewWorldMan
Likewise, Islam teaches that women are substantially inferior to men, and that female sexuality is somehow evil. Therefore, when Islam is put into practice, you'll see rapes and stonings and women generally treated like crap, even if those behaviors are not specifically called for in the Koran. Why? Because give a group of people a superiority complex--i.e., men, white people, left-handed redheads, whatever--and a divine mandate, and they'll turn into the worst kind of tin-horn dictators. It's human nature.
If you're going to quote my book, or at least attempt to speak on it, make sure you're quoting correctly. The Prophet Muhammed(PBUH), was against the discrimination against women that was going on in his time; he was also against persecution of unbelievers. If an unbeliever attacks you, you have the right to fight back. However, you do not have the right to seek revenge against innocent people simply because they do not believe in what you do.
Also, the persecution of Jews and Chrisitans is not allowed in the Holy Qu'ran, as they are considered people of the book. Followers of Allah, the God of Abraham, we are to treat them as brothers and sisters.
Sura 2, verse 190 says: "AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors."
__________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
When I saw the title of this I felt like there was a lot of potential for hearing some sort of negative story but I was pleasantly surprised:
Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.
Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”
In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”
He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.
Times
It is actually good to see a situation where we are seeing courts honor oral contracts that would give great benefits to a large amount of honest people that are purposefully taken advantage of by nefarious business partners.
It is always interesting to see how religion is sometimes capable of dispensing with justice much better than secular means as secular courts are forced to often ignore the spirit of the law and instead press ahead and prosecute the innocent.
Overall, people should consider this as a better, alternative means.
Overall, people should consider this as the first steps towards a backwards, religious fundamentalist state.
I cannot believe that such a thing as a "Sharia court" exists in a modern Western democracy. This is but the first steps of introducing a dangerous and repressive religious regime to a first world nation. I am horrified that England is going down this path.
Western democracy and Islam do not mix-ever. I hope that the British people wake up to themselves one day before it's too late. Otherwise, a foreign power will do what Hitler failed to do in WW2-take over. However, takeover from within is far more insidious than takeover from outside.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Location: Stationed in Germany, but originally from the United States
Posts: 8,599
Blessings: 50,628
My Mood
Reps: 24,007,431,011,056 (power: 24,007,431,024)
Originally Posted by BlackSabb
Overall, people should consider this as the first steps towards a backwards, religious fundamentalist state.
How is Shar'ia backwards, or will lead to an oppresive regime? Properly utilized, Shar'ia provides more safety and comfort than what is offered in Western Nations. Courts would not be backed up, and crime would be drastically lower.
__________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. -Albert Einstein
In UK Shariah Courts Used By Non-Muslims 
Linear Mode
