About divorce, yes. On the other hand, it's a little condescending for the rest of us to presume that in all cases, the women would either do better in a regular family court or would be afraid to say so if they thought that was the case. Lets give them some credit. Many non-Muslim women live in fearful domestic situations and the legal system doesn't step in except in criminal cases and that law trumps the arbitration process anyway.
Best, Ursula On 11-09-08 3:47 PM, Judith Evans wrote:
Thank you, Ursula. I did try to get information by Googling but -- of course? -- ran into attack-dog pieces with no actual content. Yes, it is remarkably similar. And the concerns women critics express are the same.Divorce is an interesting issue, as of course it's unsatisfactory for women to face one-sided divorce courts, but the state can hardly grant or deny a religious divorce.Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK j --- On *Thu, 8/9/11, Ursula Stange /<Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote: From: Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sharia Law and Britain's decline To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thursday, 8 September, 2011, 20:32 The Ontario situation is very similar, Judy (and anyone else who is interested). http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html On 11-09-08 3:09 PM, Judith Evans wrote:In my view, Lawrence, your blog posts do not count as a reply to any of my points. Let me reply to *your* points, in your email, now. “The sharia courts operating in Britain, will hear and pass legally binding judgment on cases involving divorce, financial disputes, and even domestic violence <<<<<<<<< Let me quote from the very Daily Mail article you quote: ******************* In Britain, sharia courts are permitted to rule only in civil cases, such as divorce and financial disputes. ******************* And let me explain the divorce point. Sharia courts can deal only with divorce in an Islamic marriage, can only end -- or not -- a Muslim marriage. (They make this clear.) Muslim/Islamic marriages contracted in the US are not recognised by UK law, a civil marriage must be contracted if a couple wish to be regarded as legally married. If a couple married by civil and Muslim ceremony seek a divorce, the Sharia court can only grant (or not) a Muslim divorce. So, a couple would have to seek a civil divorce also. (The Beth Din is in a similar position.) Nonetheless, full prior agreement by both parties is required. "Legally binding" here is, then, an interesting concept. How, Lawrence, do parties to a Muslim marriage in the US get a divorce from the Muslim marriage?Financial disputes can indeed be decided by the sharia courts/tribunals. This seems so uncontentious to me as to be hardly worth discussing.You say (Daily Mail again) ************** “In one recent inheritance dispute in Nuneaton, a Muslim man's estate was spit was between three daughters and two sons with each son receiving twice as much as each daughter – in keeping with sharia law. ************** I can't find this case. What did the will say? and even domestic violenc <<<<<<<<<this is of course dodgy in the extreme. The sharia courts/tribunals have no, repeat, no, jurisdiction in criminal matters. They also can only hear cases and issue rulings with the consent of both parties.So, what's going on here? It seems that the tribunals are, in conjunction with the police, acting as mediators/arbitrators. Without a specific case or cases I can't really say any more except that the police may be at fault here, one point apart. Any ruling they make on this cannot be legally binding. Judy Evans, Cardiff, UK
