Religious Law
Non-Muslims Turn to Shariah Courts in UK to Resolve Civil Disputes
Posted Jul 21, 2009 11:22 AM CST
By Martha Neil
Shariah courts in the United Kingdom aren't just being used by Muslims. A small but growing number of non-Muslims also are turning to the religious tribunals to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters.
The tribunals, which apply Islamic law based on the Koran, can offer a swifter resolution than the British courts, and commonly recognize oral agreements in a business setting, according to the London Times. As with arbitration, the rulings of the religious tribunals can be enforced under British law if the parties agree at the outset to be bound by the them.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal tells the newspaper that 5 percent of its cases involve non-Muslims.
In one case last month, a non-Muslim sought the court's help in resolving a dispute with his Muslim business partner concerning profits from their company. The non-Muslim alleged an oral agreement—and the court agreed that it existed, based on the Muslim partner's conduct, says Freed Chedie. He is a spokesman for barrister Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, who established the tribunal.
The non-Muslim was awarded 48,000 pounds (or about $79,000 in U.S. dollars).
The growing popularity of Shariah courts among both Muslims and non-Muslims in the U.K. has been controversial. Opponents express concerns that they can undermine important British legal traditions, such as providing women with the same civil rights as men.
Earlier related coverage:
ABAJournal.com: "Islamic Court Rulings are Enforceable in the United Kingdom"
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
J.D.
Jul 21, 2009 12:53 PM CST
“Opponents express concerns that they can undermine important British legal traditions, such as providing women with the same civil rights as men.”
Oh really? That’s it? Nothing to worry about then.
NO, opponents understand that it will unravel social and legal norms and ultimately destroy Western Civilization… (which is why libs have no problem with it, of course).
Flag this comment
associate
Jul 21, 2009 1:42 PM CST
JD, how dare you stand in the way of progress?
Flag this comment
PF
Jul 21, 2009 2:03 PM CST
This is very frightening. Try going to Iran and asking them to recognize UK law…it’s not going to happen!
Flag this comment
associate
Jul 21, 2009 2:53 PM CST
If you look at what’s going on here, it looks like the guy in the story chose the forum that believes in common sense. A lot of western courts are hesitant to find an oral contract. It looks like the Sharia mediators are more likely to cut the crap and rule based on the actions of the parties (i.e., infer that there was some agreement).
I would have chosen the best forum as well, Muslim or not.
Still, it is disturbing to have dual legal systems. But as long as these Sharia courts are a mediation/arbitration setup, I don’t see what the UK can/would do about it.
Flag this comment
akman
Jul 21, 2009 3:18 PM CST
If we can have Sharia law, can we have Satanic or Hindu law too? Can every religion impose it’s own barbaric laws on society?
Can’t wait until Sharia law courts in the US start handing out the death penalty to gays, ex-muslims, drug dealers, etc.
Flag this comment
DR
Jul 22, 2009 7:16 AM CST
The Sharia courts (in Great Britain) are classified as arbitration tribunals. The arbitrators’ decisions are binding much like they are in the U.S. when you go through an independent arbitrator. Jewish beth din courts have existed in England as well as other European countries for hundreds of years and involve matters such a divorce.
That being said, it is very hard to have an arbitration award set aside in the U.S. unless it can be found that the arbitrator acted improperly outside his/her interpretation of the law and facts. I’m curious to see how this plays out in the U.K. I’m not familiar with the U.K.‘s system (although I think it would probably be similar to ours), so I’m not in a position to make any judgments yet.
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Jul 22, 2009 9:33 AM CST
What matters here is that both parties’ voluntary submission of the dispute to the Sharia decision-makers is what’s required. Since civil law is just about dispute resolution, the means of resolution (short of armed combat or other iactivity likely to annoy the neighbors or break stuff) should be of no concern to anyone but the parties. Fine by me if they want the decision made by rabbis, mullahs, randomly-selected strangers or a coin flip, so long as in the end the matter is done with.
Flag this comment
T.R.
Jul 22, 2009 10:20 AM CST
I wonder what the fees are like.
Flag this comment
J.Edgar Beaver
Jul 22, 2009 10:33 AM CST
Isn’t this the same as arbitration in the US? Whatever rules the parties agree to medaite their dispute by is sufficiently legal as long as it is not otherwise illegal. Call it AAA, FAA, or Sharia as long as the parties agree to the rules at the outset, where is the harm?
Flag this comment
PF
Jul 22, 2009 10:55 AM CST
I suppose I agree to some extent with J.Edgar. In reality, if two parties wish to set the rules within which the arbiter has to act, or submit their dispute to an arbiter which follows a different legal system or set of legal principles, such as the sharia courts, then I suppose the old theory of “you made you bed now sleep in it” applies.
The only concern I have is that those persons who we raised to understand the legal principles of a common law system (to the extent a layperson can) and the ethical and moral frameworks within when the common law system operates, are they, or can they be, fully apprised of the grave differences between the two systems - common law vs. sharia. One that is not fully apprised of these differences could be in for a real surprise when an arbiter’s decision is rendered.
I think that so long as the submission of their dispute to the sharia courts remains voluntary as between the parties then it is really their problem and not our business. Where one party can force another into this forum is where the problem arises and the whole common law system is thrown into disrepute.
To that end, I am still a little disturbed by this.
Flag this comment
Jay
Jul 22, 2009 12:55 PM CST
I am very disturbed by this. These are not just arbitration panels that all the parties are voluntarily submitting to. The potential for abuse in domestic and inheritance situations is very high. Sharia does not respect the rights of women and does not recognize the same underlying legal principles and traditions as we do. British courts should not uphold the rulings of these sharia courts.
Please check out this article for more information about the problems of these sharia courts:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022743.php
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.