Islamic sharia courts in Britain are now 'legally binding'

The Daily Mail

September 15,2010

Islamic sharia law courts in Britain are exploiting a little-known  legal clause to make their verdicts officially binding under UK law in  cases including divorce, financial disputes and even domestic violence.

A  new network of courts in five major cities is hearing cases where  Muslims involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law, and under  the 1996 Arbitration Act the court's decisions can then be enforced by  the county courts or the High Court.

Officials behind the new  system claim to have dealt with more than 100 cases since last summer,  including six involving domestic violence which is a criminal rather  than civil offence, and said they hoped to take over growing numbers of  'smaller' criminal cases in future.

Women are likely to suffer more if sharia law, which does treat women equally to men, becomes an accepted legal avenue

The revelations sparked uproar yesterday, with warnings that the  fundamental principle of equal treatment for all - the bedrock of  British justice - was being gravely undermined.

Critics fear  Britain's Islamic hard-liners will now try to make sharia law the  dominant legal system in Muslim neighbourhoods, and warn that women  often receive less favourable treatment at the hands of the traditional  Islamic courts. (Continues)

Related:

Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal

"Church" Law has ALWAYS been in force alongside Secular Law ...

Regarding the sources: While The Times is entirely respectable, Americans really must stop citing the Daily Mail as a source. The Daily Mail is an extreme-right tabloid and what little news might actually be contained therein is filtered through a truly collosal level of bias, distortion and their famous fixations on immigration, cancer and demonising welfare claimants. THIS is a fairly accurate portrayal of their content and attitudes.

As for the story itself: It's a loophole, one that wasn't intended by the arbitration acts and will almost certainly be corrected as soon as Parliament returns from recess in October.

Thanks, Ebon, for being the voice of reason.

But, I think, there is a dilemma here for those who support tolerance for immigrants. 

The expectation ought to be that if you are moving into a country, you ought to be prepared to abide by the laws you find there.  If you are not prepared to do so, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to come.  It might be legal, but exploiting loopholes to try to bring your own laws with you doesn't seem quite right to me.

So is there any provision to prevent Sharia courts from handing down what might be deemed by British law as cruel and unusual punishment? What if stoning to death (punishment for adultery) was the sentence?

What about a lack of punishment (i.e. no punishment for something like an honor killing)? Would that go over well?

 Are these cases being documented and are they subject to review/appeal?

 Kinda messy if you ask me. Two sets of justice.

Irene