Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

How many people who are against Shari'a in the UK know that we have Jewish courts here?

There have been Jewish Beth Din courts operating in Britain for decades. They mediate in issues such as marriage, inheritance and business ethics. Cases involving the Jewish community are sometimes referred to them by secular courts.

They operate ENTIRELY within the confines of British law.

Why shouldn't Muslims be allowed a similar system?

17 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    If some people voluntarily decide to submit to the judgment of a few individuals forming an informal "court", that's fine. I think the real question is what courts are encompassed by the country's legal system and have the power of law. Let me give you the American formula as an example.

    There are Beth Dins in America. Their directives have no force of law, and their decisions are not part of the American common law. Although, like all religious organizations, they are exempt from paying taxes, Beth Dins are not funded by the public otherwise, like courts are. They are funded by their own communities, and their own litigants. Quite simply, they aren't part of the court system.

    If two parties voluntarily agree to a binding arbitration, they can pick whatever arbitrator they want -- it can be a private arbitrating company, such as AAA, or a religious court. BUT -- ALL parties have to AGREE to refer the case to that arbitrator (a secular civil court may not simply refer them to a religious court), and the decision itself must comply with secular laws and public policy (no stonings for adultery, or anything like that). Even if the parties agreed to arbitrate a case in a Beth Din, and the Beth Din issued a decision, that decision must still be confirmed by a directive of a secular court before a law enforcement official will enforce it -- you can't just take a piece of paper from a Beth Din to a local sheriff and expect that sheriff to carry out its orders.

    Bottom line -- having religious "courts" per se is not a problem. It's when religious courts become part of the "official" legal system, when religious adherents are automatically referred to them; when secular courts are obligated to defer to their judgments; and when the public executive branch is subjugated to such courts -- THAT's a problem.

    In the United States, the First Amendment was interpreted very early on to proscribe public funding for religious institutions (other than tax-exempt status), or governmental "entanglements with religion". At the same time, the Seventh and the Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit an involuntary referral of a litigant to religious court. That pretty much precludes binding, "official" Sharia courts in this country. Barring, of course, at least two radical Constitutional amendments, which would be a tall order indeed, even for the supposedly "fasted growing" religion.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    People should be able to agree to arbitration by whomever they wish. What people don't want to happen is for criminals to be tried by religious courts. The case that has been cited many times on Yahoo Answers was about a stabbing. I haven't read the case but I assume it was only a stabbing and not a murder since that is how it's being referred to. I know in the US if someone stabs me, I have the decision of whether I want to press charges. So, if this person didn't press charges, at least the person who stabbed him had to face SOME consequences, even if they were because of his religion. People just don't want to be mandated to use religious courts, which would be a TOTAL mistake. They also don't want to be a victim of a crime by a Jew or a Muslim, and have that criminal go to a court run by Jews or Muslims. You can see how people would suspect some bias there. Nobody is mandated to use Jewish courts, other than by their religious beliefs and affiliations, and they don't try criminal cases.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The question seems to be interested. In my opinion not only Muslim but all other religions persons should be allowed. This may enhance the prestige of Great Britain throughout the world if they do so. If such courts take some money from Jewish people then they can take the same money from other religions persons also. I have my different opinion than others related with religions. I can advice if they accept to allow all the persons who are citizen of U.K. Thanks to the question for ask timely question

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    What Dr Williams has demonstrated very well is that there is NO place for religious courts of any description in English law. By all means, the religious may consult their religious leaders for advice, or for what would be recognized as acceptable according to their religious beliefs (and the religious seem perfectly capable of accepting secular ideas such as divorce when it suits them). But nothing definitively legal should be based on any kind of faith whatever. That includes Christianity.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I agree, and have said so in several of my responses relating to this issue over the last few days. The important thing is that if there was British legal recognition of these entirely voluntary and civil-only courts I think this would separate them from the less savoury matters concerning criminal law.

    If it's true, as it seems to be, that some peope have (in effect) been bribed not to take criminal prosecutions, this is just as wrong when it's Muslims and sharia courts involved as it was when it was the Kray twins or current drug dealers or anyone else who tries to circumvent British law.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Beth Din only offer ARBITRATION.

    They never deal with CRIMINAL law - some Sharia courts are already doing this.

    Jewish law is ALWAYS secondary to BRITISH Law - ALWAYS.

    Ask yourself this: when they tried to implement Sharia law in Canada, why were MUSLIM WOMEN the first ones taking to the streets in protest?

    EDIT

    - surveys and polls in Britain repeatedly indicate that a large number of Muslims would like to see the UK becoming an Islamic country. But Jews do not wish for the UK to be anything other than a British country.

    An undercover investigation by CH4 proved, and showed, that many London mosques were selling racist literature and that Imams were preaching hatred.

    No such thing EVER happens in any synagogue.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    As long as it is within the confines of British law there shouldn't be a problem. I have to say that i'm not sure about Shari'a law but it may be hard to implement some things.

    I have also heard that there is lots of different versions of it, i guess depending on what nationality/ region of a country people are originally from so even attempting to make a compromise between all the versions may be very difficult.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • erker
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Bigotry and hatred have been around when you consider that there have been in user-friendly terms 3 human beings on earth. unusual guy out. 2 might gang on one. there's a small treatment and that may not status for intolerance. communicate up and take a stand. do no longer bypass alongside jokes approximately cultures, races, religions, or nationalities. stay via occasion. Be offended whilst somebody says something that's hateful or bigoted. i'm Jewish. i attempt to assist human beings comprehend that the adjustments between me and them are none. i think interior the 1st e book of the Bible, the Christians have faith interior the 2d e book of the Bible, and the Muslims have faith interior the 0.33 e book of the Bible. i do no longer think in Christ or Mohamed, yet i do no longer criticize somebody who does. My terrific buddy is Catholic and yet another great buddy is Muslim. all of us can communicate the adjustments between us in a civilized way, yet we by no ability choose the others determination. So basically coach via occasion. in case you will get one individual to open one eye in user-friendly terms a slit, you have achieved lots of sturdy artwork. perhaps sooner or later that is going to pay itself forward.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Beit Din have no legal power. Anyone who goes to them for advice can just as easily ignore it. Muslims go to Imams for advice and can either ignore the advice or accept it.

    And why do you care what the UK does? It is there country they can do whatever they want. Why do you Muslims always butt into other peoples business?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    As Paerback rightly says, the Beth Din only offer arbitration services and NEVER deal with criminal cases.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.