NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

By calling themselves "Arbitration tribunals", they have managed to find a way to make Sharia law stick in Britain. For civil matters, I don't see a problem with it, but my issue is this.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

...

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.



Also, worth mentioning. Jewish Beth Din courts work under the same system in Britain, but there is no evidence (that I can find, anyways), that they have taken any criminal cases, such as domestic violence.

Wow, a Sharia court giving men a free pass on domestic violence? Who would've thought that could happen...

I'm quite glad we don't let any religion pull this kind of shit in the United States. Regardless of what you believe, you should be tried by a secular court, secular jury, and under the force of secular law and I'm glad we have kept it that way because allowing any religious court to arbitrate is going to end in disaster. Somehow, it's always the nutty types that serve on those things and nutty types that use them.

By calling themselves "Arbitration tribunals", they have managed to find a way to make Sharia law stick in Britain. For civil matters, I don't see a problem with it, but my issue is this.

<snip article>
These courts, neither the Beth Din nor these sharia tribunals, should not be deciding criminal cases.

Nuff said.

What he said.

I've a feeling that the anger management classes aren't going to help...

Wow, a Sharia court giving men a free pass on domestic violence? Who would've thought that could happen...

I'm quite glad we don't let any religion pull this kind of shit in the United States. Regardless of what you believe, you should be tried by a secular court, secular jury, and under the force of secular law and I'm glad we have kept it that way because allowing any religious court to arbitrate is going to end in disaster. Somehow, it's always the nutty types that serve on those things and nutty types that use them.

Not wholly secular though.... Otherwise they would find in favour of the cases that object to 'God' being in the pledge of allegiance.

Not wholly secular though.... Otherwise they would find in favour of the cases that object to 'God' being in the pledge of allegiance.

True, but they don't let them get away with the kind of stuff that this has. It would be nice to shake off what religious roots it has, but it's not "Well, you beat your wife. You should go to anger training.:)" That this is.

Not wholly secular though.... Otherwise they would find in favour of the cases that object to 'God' being in the pledge of allegiance.

True. We're not perfect, although many people probably object to that degree of secularism in government.

From a Constitutional standpoint, however, it is still on pretty weak grounds. The law prohibits government espousal of religion, not necessarily the recognition of God or the use of the term in official documents. It's mentioned in the Constitution to begin with, so it would be hard to ever completely remove all mention of God from American government.

I don't mind it, though. Those kinds of religious statements are a good compromise between the historically religious American culture and modern secularism.

Not wholly secular though.... Otherwise they would find in favour of the cases that object to 'God' being in the pledge of allegiance.

OMG you are so right, the two things are totally the same.

I'm glad you pointed it out.

Perhaps this speech by The Lord Chief Justice, on the 3rd July 2008, would shed some light:

"...This example brings me onto the topic of Sharia law. It is not a topic on which I can claim any special expertise, but I have been reading quite a lot about it in preparation for this talk. I have also recently been on a visit to Oman and discussed with lawyers there the manner of the application of Sharia law in that country. It has become clear to me that there is widespread misunderstanding in this country as to the nature of Sharia law. Sharia consists of a set of principles governing the way that one should live one’s life in accordance with the will of God. These principles are based on the Qu’ran, as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad and interpreted by Islamic scholars. The principles have much in common with those of other religions. They do not include forced marriage or the repression of women. Compliance with them requires a high level of personal conduct, including abstinence from alcohol. I understand that it is not the case that for a Muslim to lead his or her life in accordance with these principles will be in conflict with the requirements of the law in this country

What would be in conflict with the law would be to impose certain sanctions for failure to comply with Sharia principles. Part of the misconception about Sharia law is the belief that Sharia is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands, or death for those who fail to comply with the law. And the view of many of Sharia law is coloured by violent extremists who invoke it, perversely, to justify terrorist atrocities such as suicide bombing, which I understand to be in conflict with Islamic principles. There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction. Nor, when I was in Oman, did I find that such penalties formed any part of the law applied there. It is true that they have the death penalty for that intentional murder, but they do not apply any of the other forms of corporal punishment I have just listed.

It remains the fact that in Muslim countries where the law is founded on Sharia principles, the law includes sanctions for failure to observe those principles and there are courts to try those who are alleged to have breached those laws. The definition of the law and the sanctions to be applied for breach of it differ from one Muslim country to another. In some countries the courts interpret Sharia Law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts.

...It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the
mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. So far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognise aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country."

(From the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal's Website (http://www.matribunal.com/initiative_lcj_transcript.html).)

Though I wonder if they'll let me set up "Crusader Courts"?

Allowing Shara's Laws even in civil proceedings is a huge mistake. Western countries need to stop this now, before there are any precidents allowing it. Same for any other religion. That would be like the Mormon's having their own court system in Utah, the Jews in New York City. Either of those would be totally wrong. First nation's are trying something like this based on their traditional laws, but they were here first, the moslem's were not. These people came here for whatever reason, they should adopt the ways of their host nations, not the other way around.

OMG you are so right, the two things are totally the same.

I'm glad you pointed it out.

Anytime :D


It's a slippery slope anyway....

I don't see the problem here, as long as both partners agreed it will be settled by Sharia arbitration, if the wife is unhappy with the punishment, she can press charges in an English law court.

It's a slippery slope anyway....

Not to threadjack, but I personally encountered a slippery slope a few minutes ago. Goddamn rain.

....There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution

It's reassuring that there won't be the more extreme (as we view them) punishments, but the flipside is that it accepts that they can demand less extreme punishments (a telling off instead of jail time) - is that really any better in principle?

That would seem to suggest that they have entered into a contractual agreement for mediation for a criminal case in sharia courts?

I'm quite glad we don't let any religion pull this kind of shit in the United States. Regardless of what you believe, you should be tried by a secular court, secular jury, and under the force of secular law and I'm glad we have kept it that way because allowing any religious court to arbitrate is going to end in disaster. Somehow, it's always the nutty types that serve on those things and nutty types that use them.
Like how until very recently (last couple years) it was alright for a husband to rape his wife because it was fulfilling marital duties in at least a handful of states?

Like how until very recently (last couple years) it was alright for a husband to rape his wife because it was fulfilling marital duties in at least a handful of states?

Jesus Christ...(no pun intended)

I'm glad that was struck down. All the more reason to view libertarian suggestions of "states rights" with the utmost suspicion, imo.

It's reassuring that there won't be the more extreme (as we view them) punishments, but the flipside is that it accepts that they can demand less extreme punishments (a telling off instead of jail time) - is that really any better in principle?

That would seem to suggest that they have entered into a contractual agreement for mediation for a criminal case in sharia courts?
I don't see how it does; certainly the Lord Justice makes no mention of arbitration tribunals deciding criminal cases. Moreover, any arbitration would have to be fully in line with UK law, which would include being in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, etc.

I'm not saying that what's happening is exactly as I'd desire it to be, but I want to head off at the pass the inevitable suggestions of UK 'Islamification', 'Londinistan' and other moronic exaggerations of reality.

Jesus Christ...(no pun intended)

I'm glad that was struck down. All the more reason to view libertarian suggestions of "states rights" with the utmost suspicion, imo.

This.


"State rights" do nothing but allow certian states to willingly descend back into the Middle Ages.

Jesus Christ...(no pun intended)

I'm glad that was struck down. All the more reason to view libertarian suggestions of "states rights" with the utmost suspicion, imo.
Little l or big L?

This.


"State rights" do nothing but allow certian states to willingly descend back into the Middle Ages.
Mm. Depends. If you strip states of all rights, what's the point? Go straight to counties. But some limit on their power must be there.

Little l or big L?

Regardless "states rights" are problematic no matter what type of "l" there is. But we'll go with big "L" just because it will be funny to watch you freak.

Mm. Depends. If you strip states of all rights, what's the point? Go straight to counties. But some limit on their power must be there.

I actually think that the very idea of "states rights" and states being allowed to have different laws between each other is stupid. I like the French way of doing it with their Nationa Government.

I don't see how it does; certainly the Lord Justice makes no mention of arbitration tribunals deciding criminal cases. Moreover, any arbitration would have to be fully in line with UK law, which would include being in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, etc.

I'm not saying that what's happening is exactly as I'd desire it to be, but I want to head off at the pass the inevitable suggestions of UK 'Islamification', 'Londinistan' and other moronic exaggerations of reality.

Just had a bit of an investigation - I had overlooked that part of the law (e.g. family law act 1993) covers civil remedies like injunctions, so it isn't necessarily a case of criminal law.

You take all the fun out of mud-slinging debased and ignorant flaming. Gah. You are obviously made of ebilz.

I don't see how it does; certainly the Lord Justice makes no mention of arbitration tribunals deciding criminal cases. Moreover, any arbitration would have to be fully in line with UK law, which would include being in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, etc.

I'm not saying that what's happening is exactly as I'd desire it to be, but I want to head off at the pass the inevitable suggestions of UK 'Islamification', 'Londinistan' and other moronic exaggerations of reality.

Not like most people who like to go on an Ebil Mozlemz rant really need an excuse to scream "Islamofascism", '[Fill in country of choice]-abia" or "[Fill in country of choice]-istan" to begin with, but in this case they'll merely cite sharia examples from the decidedly undemocratic and fundamentalist Islamic nations in an attempt to justify their rants anyways.

I actually think that the very idea of "states rights" and states being allowed to have different laws between each other is stupid. I like the French way of doing it with their Nationa Government.
Then we will no longer be the United states of America.

Then we will no longer be the United states of America.

We'd have to change our name. In exchange for uniform laws across the nation, thats a good trade.

Regardless "states rights" are problematic no matter what type of "l" there is. But we'll go with big "L" just because it will be funny to watch you freak.
*Freaks*

No, but with all seriousness, although States Rights can cause problems, it serves as an equalizer to the Federal government. That standing, I agree insofar as they have too much power currently.

We'd have to change our name. In exchange for uniform laws across the nation, thats a good trade.
Says you. Do you really think that by destroying states, all the change will be will be in the name and uniform laws? Oh boy, I'd love to see that. It'd be hilarious, and sad at the same time.

UK should get their balls and put a big sign at each customs office:



LEAVE RELIGION AT DOOR

THANK YOU.

UK should get their balls and put a big sign at each customs office:



LEAVE RELIGION AT DOOR

THANK YOU.

Which is a big laugh coming from the same country that created the Church of England just so Ol' Henry could ditch Catherine for a shot at scoring a direct hit with Anne Boleyn.

Just had a bit of an investigation - I had overlooked that part of the law (e.g. family law act 1993) covers civil remedies like injunctions, so it isn't necessarily a case of criminal law.

You take all the fun out of mud-slinging debased and ignorant flaming. Gah. You are obviously made of ebilz.
I try my best.



UK should get their balls and put a big sign at each customs office:

LEAVE RELIGION AT DOOR
THANK YOU.
No thanks,

We're fine with folks believing what they want to, as long as they aren't forcing their religion on anybody else, or attempting to make their religion 'special'. With the recent repealing (IIRC, though I don't know if 'repealing' is the correct term) of the Blasphemy Laws, we're realising this.

We're fine with folks believing what they want to, as long as they aren't forcing their religion on anybody else, or attempting to make their religion 'special'.
You can't expect people to come in with Muslim faith, yet obey Christian/Atheist laws. All you can do is jail them when they break your laws, but they'll still keep following theirs.

It's like letting deeply faithful Christians into a Muslim country, but expecting them to internally accept and obey Sharia law to the letter.

I actually think that the very idea of "states rights" and states being allowed to have different laws between each other is stupid.
The idea with states having different sets of laws is that if you don't like one, you can go to another.

These courts, neither the Beth Din nor these sharia tribunals, should not be deciding criminal cases.

Nuff said.

Or civil cases either. When people live in a country, they should be subject to the laws of that country and only the laws of that country unless they are in the military and also subject to military law. By allowing this to happen I'm afraid the UK is walking on the slippery slope. :(

Which is a big laugh coming from the same country that created the Church of England just so Ol' Henry could ditch Catherine for a shot at scoring a direct hit with Anne Boleyn.
It's like a bar. You can order drinks from the bartender, but can't bring your own.

I don't see why can't we have countries work the same way in regards to laws (as well as religions and cultures, which include laws deeply ingrained into them).

Or civil cases either. When people live in a country, they should be subject to the laws of that country and only the laws of that country unless they are in the military and also subject to military law. By allowing this to happen I'm afraid the UK is walking on the slippery slope. :(

The UK has an interesting attitude towards that. As a British subject I'm bound by British law where ever I am in the world, as well as local laws.

You can't expect people to come in with Muslim faith, yet obey Christian/Atheist laws. All you can do is jail them when they break your laws, but they'll still keep following theirs. It's like letting deeply faithful Christians into a Muslim country, but expecting them to internally accept and obey Sharia law to the letter.
The UK's laws are not "Christian/Atheist laws". The country is a multiracial, multicultural, multifaith entity, and the laws broadly reflect that. There's a long tradition of UK law accommodating the respectful beliefs of many different religions, and of those who hold no religious beliefs at all. The Lord Justice's speech that I linked to previously talks about this in detail.

So, Muslim citizens of the UK are not expected to abide by 'Christian' nor 'Athiest' law. Everyone, of any faith or none, is expected by the courts to obey the law. Thus, we can perfectly 'expect' those of Islamic faith to be perfectly able to go on living in the UK; as they have done for a very long time, and just as Jewish citizens have managed from the 1200's onwards.



Or civil cases either. When people live in a country, they should be subject to the laws of that country and only the laws of that country unless they are in the military and also subject to military law.
They are subject to the UK's law.

Arbitration courts arbitrate in civil court cases, if both parties agree. If you and I have a disagreement over money I owe you, we can go to court to sort it out, but alternatively we could ask a trusted mutual friend to arbitrate, or a lawyer friend, or a religious authority, or someone else; all of our choosing.

We've had multiple threads on this already this year.

What the issue is here is whether the courts mentioned in the OP are overstepping their boundaries. If the report is accurate, I believe they are.

The UK has an interesting attitude towards that. As a British subject I'm bound by British law where ever I am in the world, as well as local laws.

That's weird. Does that mean to British have no protection against double jeopardy? Does that mean if you are convicted of drug dealing in Brazil you can also be tried for the same crime in the UK?

That's weird. Does that mean to British have no protection against double jeopardy? Does that mean if you are convicted of drug dealing in Brazil you can also be tried for the same crime in the UK?

It's more aimed at prosecuting people who commit crimes abroad for which there is no law in the state where they commit them.

You can't expect people to come in with Muslim faith, yet obey Christian/Atheist laws. All you can do is jail them when they break your laws, but they'll still keep following theirs.

It's like letting deeply faithful Christians into a Muslim country, but expecting them to internally accept and obey Sharia law to the letter.

Yes, I can expect people who come into the country no matter what their religion to obey the laws of that country. We can also expect visitors, of any religion, to countries with Sharia law to respect an obey the law while they are there. If anyone of any religion doesn't want to obey the laws of the country they have immigrated to or are visiting, they should leave and go to a country more in line with their beliefs.

That's weird. Does that mean to British have no protection against double jeopardy? Does that mean if you are convicted of drug dealing in Brazil you can also be tried for the same crime in the UK?

I think they are concerned with specific crimes, as fartsniffage says, like sex tourism.

As if the crimes were crimes in the country committed, they would probably extradite.

Arbitration courts arbitrate in civil court cases, if both parties agree. If you and I have a disagreement over money I owe you, we can go to court to sort it out, but alternatively we could ask a trusted mutual friend to arbitrate, or a lawyer friend, or a religious authority, or someone else; all of our choosing.

Ok, now I understand. Kind of like Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, etc. on TV here in the US. People who choose to have their case heard by those judges on TV and the judgment is final. Although the judges were actual practicing judges at one time the TV courts are an arbitration and decisions are final.

Yes, I can expect people who come into the country no matter what their religion to obey the laws of that country. We can also expect visitors, of any religion, to countries with Sharia law to respect an obey the law while they are there. If anyone of any religion doesn't want to obey the laws of the country they have immigrated to or are visiting, they should leave and go to a country more in line with their beliefs.

That's exactly what they do in Sharia countries like Saudi, I can't exclaim "but I'm agnostic - I'm undecided whether you can prosecute me!", they'll just go ahead and throw me in jail.

Before going there, I would know their law was such. Ignorance is no defence after all.

UK law, although supposedly secular, is broadly morally based upon the Christian tradition like many western countries. It's become progressively more secular over time, but it still has religious roots.

So, Muslim citizens of the UK are not expected to abide by 'Christian' nor 'Athiest' law. Everyone, of any faith or none, is expected by the courts to obey the law.
It's not always compatible. You can't follow two conflicting laws at once, say the religious one that tells you to commit revenge yourself and the civil one that tells you to take it to the cops.

If anyone of any religion doesn't want to obey the laws of the country they have immigrated to or are visiting, they should leave and go to a country more in line with their beliefs.
Yes.
So they're given a choice of giving up their religion, or at least a crucial part of it (Sharia law), or coming to a country where it's legal.

Counting on "We hope the situation requiring the use of their conflicting law never comes (or at least it never gets reported)" is just criminally reckless.

Yes.
So they're given a choice of giving up their religion, or at least a crucial part of it (Sharia law), or coming to a country where it's legal.

Counting on "We hope the situation requiring the use of their conflicting law never comes (or at least it never gets reported)" is just criminally reckless.

If they know the law and they know it conflicts with their religion or philosophy why would they want to come? I know that the laws of Saudi Arabia conflict with my philosophy and I would never immigrate to that country. When I was there on deployment with the US military I understood those laws and obeyed them. This isn't rocket science you know. Instead of immigrating and expecting some other culture to accommodate your "right" to an honor killing, stay where you are so you can have that right. :(

If they know the law and they know it conflicts with their religion or philosophy why would they want to come?
Higher wages.

And they're not us Westerners, they have no respect for our law, and simply count on not having to deal with it. It's a surprise this case got reported. But it's only a crime to us, to them, they did what they should, and the legal system is oppressing them.


Instead of immigrating and expecting some other culture to accommodate your "right" to an honor killing, stay where you are so you can have that right. :(
Exactly.
But not everyone gets it.
That's why Western nations need "LEAVE YOUR LAWS (TRADITIONS, CULTURE, RELIGION) AT DOOR" policy, open, public, and active.
If you come to the West, be it UK, US, France, etc., you come to another culture, and you should be ready to abandon yours whenever it conflicts with the local one. If you don't want to or can't, don't come.

If you come to the West, be it UK, US, France, etc., you come to another culture, and you should be ready to abandon yours whenever it conflicts with the local one. If you don't want to or can't, don't come.
You speak like someone who's never actually moved anywhere else.

Even though the differences between Germany and Australia aren't huge, there are several things which you seem to be telling me I should stop doing. Like celebrating Christmas on the night of the 24th, rather than the 25th.

Now, you can tell me that this isn't actually "in conflict", but then I'd have to ask you what this actually means. Cultures are shared values, beliefs, attitudes and artifacts. Sometimes that means people don't agree with each other - but that's hardly something exclusive to immigrant communities. There are dozens or more major subcultures in Britain, hundreds or thousands of further divisions within those. There are old people who reckon children should be beaten if they act up and young people who reckon drinking or smoking weed until they wake up the next morning on the sidewalk is okay. Those differing opinions are also the result of different cultures, but I presume you don't support laws aimed at making any one of these groups disappear.

You're confusing the issue when you talk about culture here. If for some reason you think tradition compels you to hurt other people against their will, then you're not wrong because other people think you are, or because you live in a country where tradition says something else. You're wrong because you're hurting people, because you're violating basic moral premises required for the coexistence of healthy, happy human beings.

It is irrelevant what god people pray to, what language they speak or whether they ever bother leaving their little quarter of town. If they want, they can live all their lives in Britain without ever learning English, just staying in the few streets in which this particular immigrant community lives. It's a loss for them, but they're free to be making wrong decisions. They don't hurt anyone with it, and as a result you don't have the right to hurt them. But by making laws (that is, commands that are enforced by violence) you are hurting them, even though they did nothing to you and posed no threat to you.

Even though the differences between Germany and Australia aren't huge, there are several things which you seem to be telling me I should stop doing. Like celebrating Christmas on the night of the 24th, rather than the 25th.
You can keep celebrating old holidays, but it won't be the same - you'll be usually celebrating them alone or with the family. You won't be able to celebrate Independence Day if you move away from US, the same way as you used to.


Now, you can tell me that this isn't actually "in conflict", but then I'd have to ask you what this actually means.
Well, you have two holidays and don't share them... Probably not a conflict here.

Cultures are shared values, beliefs, attitudes and artifacts. Sometimes that means people don't agree with each other - but that's hardly something exclusive to immigrant communities. There are dozens or more major subcultures in Britain, hundreds or thousands of further divisions within those.
And culture as a whole is the basic set of beliefs and values that almost all of them still share.

For instance:
If for some reason you think tradition compels you to hurt other people against their will, then you're not wrong because other people think you are, or because you live in a country where tradition says something else. You're wrong because you're hurting people, because you're violating basic moral premises required for the coexistence of healthy, happy human beings.
This is what culture is. The belief that hurting people is bad is so ingrained into you that you don't even see that it's a part of the culture, you absolutize it as part of the basic moral premises.

Which is just what the base culture really is - beliefs that seem self-obvious and absolute.


However, in some other culture, hurting each other could be seen as a necessary part of life. For instance, some warrior culture, where the justice of the strong killing the weak is as morally clear-cut as the wrongness of hurting others for you.
And in some cultures, the idea that men are above women is as obvious as that humans are above cows - they don't believe it to be cultural - it's one of the basic moral premises for them.


It is irrelevant what god people pray to,
It is relevant. It's only irrelevant in our virtually entirely atheist or quasi-Christian culture, where religion is limited to a show at the megachurch and a prayer before dinner.

For some other cultures, religion is what defines the man, and Qur'an is the absolute of morals. For some cultures,

But by making laws (that is, commands that are enforced by violence) you are hurting them, even though they did nothing to you and posed no threat to you.
They DO pose a threat. People who follow and believe in their own laws, and see the local laws as a pestering inconvenience, are always a potential threat. It's not just violence which keeps the law working, it's just as much respect for it.

This is what culture is. The belief that hurting people is bad is so ingrained into you that you don't even see that it's a part of the culture, you absolutize it as part of the basic moral premises.
That's the oldest counter in the book, and it doesn't get any more correct by repetition. I don't use any cultural values in my derivation of the premise, and unless you can find some reason for why it is wrong, who happens to have formulated it is irrelevant. You're basically engaging in an ad hominem argument against the statement that I made, as though you'd be agreeing with me if I came from a "warrior culture".

In a culture in which the initiation of violence against others was not wrong, could people be "happy, healthy human beings"?

Some could be happy, many wouldn't be, since they're living in constant fear and mourning the loss of people close to them.

Some would be healthy, many wouldn't be, for obvious reasons.

And no one in such a culture could be a human being, since to be human is to use one's mind and reason to solve problems and transform the world in such a way as to make it correspond with one's values. In a world in which reason isn't the tool to be used, but some sort of wooden club, being and remaining human is not possible. People would simply be masses of organic material with no description or value beyond that.

However, in some other culture, hurting each other could be seen as a necessary part of life. For instance, some warrior culture, where the justice of the strong killing the weak is as morally clear-cut as the wrongness of hurting others for you.
There exists no such culture in real life. At best some cultures simply deny humanity to those it declares its enemies, thus failing to apply the basic rights of humans to them. But that's a conscious decision to violate the standard that they still recognise as existing and valid in their dealings with people from their own tribe.

And in some cultures, the idea that men are above women is as obvious as that humans are above cows - they don't believe it to be cultural - it's one of the basic moral premises for them.
No, because they didn't arrive at it with any thought of their own. They simply accepted it because they refuse to think for themselves. Thought isn't a cultural thing, it's universal. Some people choose to do it and others don't, but (barring some sort of illness or disability) none are actually incapable of doing so. And culture has no effect on this.

For some other cultures, religion is what defines the man, and Qur'an is the absolute of morals. For some cultures,
And they may well believe that. But it's not a belief that is derived at through thought and that can be transmitted through rational argument. It's not derivable or testable, it's faith.

The same is not true for forbidding the initiation of violence against other people. As far as we can tell with our own minds, this law is therefore true and both a moral and physical requirement. What the guy thinks about his religion is a personal matter, but a law against violence is universal and there can be no reason for it not to apply to all.

In relationships between people, morality must therefore win over religion. If someone can't accept that, then they will find out what happens if you do violate the law, regardless of where you happen to have been born.

They DO pose a threat. People who follow and believe in their own laws, and see the local laws as a pestering inconvenience, are always a potential threat. It's not just violence which keeps the law working, it's just as much respect for it.
Hardly. I don't respect 90% of laws. I follow them because I will get hurt if I don't, and at this point in time there is no mechanism for me to state a case without relying on the anti-mind that is the mob.

Requiring someone not to hurt me is reasonable. Requiring someone not to want to hurt me is not.

In a culture in which the initiation of violence against others was not wrong, could people be "happy, healthy human beings"?
Most definitely. Many would possibly be happier than now.


Some could be happy, many wouldn't be, since they're living in constant fear and mourning the loss of people close to them.
Mourning comes from our culture. And it changes. Soldiers, who have people die by their side one by one, learn to get rid of constant mourning, and have different emotions.


And no one in such a culture could be a human being, since to be human is to use one's mind and reason to solve problems and transform the world in such a way as to make it correspond with one's values.
To be human is to have Homo Sapiens genetic code.

To you "mind and reason", to another culture "strength and speed".


There exists no such culture in real life.
Maybe, maybe there does, I'd be careful about saying "no" without making sure no tribe still holds on to it.
And even if not, it's not anymore.


No, because they didn't arrive at it with any thought of their own. They simply accepted it because they refuse to think for themselves.
So? Would it be better if they arrived at it with thought of their own? Because, you know, it's not impossible to do so, given the right mindset.


What the guy thinks about his religion is a personal matter, but a law against violence is universal and there can be no reason for it not to apply to all.
Of course it's not universal. We apply death penalty, we kill people who grossly violate our rules, just like in Sharia law. The Sharia Law simply has a lower threshold than the Common Law.

And our killing people not only for murder, but also for treason could too be seen as barbaric by a more advanced culture.


In relationships between people, morality must therefore win over religion.
Morality comes from religion. And in less irreligious cultures, morality is religion.

Wow, a Sharia court giving men a free pass on domestic violence? Who would've thought that could happen...

I'm quite glad we don't let any religion pull this kind of shit in the United States.

Nope, in the States we have SECULAR Judges who give men a free pass on domestic violence and officers who show up (hours after the call is made) and if you're lucky give the man a stern talking to and leave. Hell, in some US courts getting the guy in anger management would be an improvement.

Ok, now I understand. Kind of like Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, etc. on TV here in the US. People who choose to have their case heard by those judges on TV and the judgment is final. Although the judges were actual practicing judges at one time the TV courts are an arbitration and decisions are final.
Yes.

Though the important issues here are the remit these courts have and whether the courts in the article are overstepping their bounds, and the extent of free choice people have in coming before an arbitration court outside of the UK law courts.



And culture as a whole is the basic set of beliefs and values that almost all of them still share.
And what "basic set of beliefs and values" do British citizens share? I don't know, and I live here. The idea of a single, homogeneous culture that presides over the UK (or any nation) is simple non-existent.

Ok, now I understand. Kind of like Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, etc. on TV here in the US. People who choose to have their case heard by those judges on TV and the judgment is final. Although the judges were actual practicing judges at one time the TV courts are an arbitration and decisions are final.

Yes.

Though the important issues here are the remit these courts have and whether the courts in the article are overstepping their bounds, and the extent of free choice people have in coming before an arbitration court outside of the UK law courts.


iirc the decisions aren't completely binding, appeals can be made to the normal court system and can be overturned etc, but the benefit of doubt is on the side of the person who 'won' the arbitration case.

It's like letting deeply faithful Christians into a Muslim country, but expecting them to internally accept and obey Sharia law to the letter.
Um, yes. That is what happens. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, alcohol and pork are illegal, and I guarantee you they don't get all angsty about imposing themselves on the poor, widdwe immigrants.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

By calling themselves "Arbitration tribunals", they have managed to find a way to make Sharia law stick in Britain. For civil matters, I don't see a problem with it, but my issue is this.

Also, worth mentioning. Jewish Beth Din courts work under the same system in Britain, but there is no evidence (that I can find, anyways), that they have taken any criminal cases, such as domestic violence.
They can appeal to a proper court if they think that the ruling is unfair. And the real law has precedence over more informal arrangements such as these.

Not to threadjack, but I personally encountered a slippery slope a few minutes ago. Goddamn rain.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I just had a mental image of someone sliding down a slope shouting "This is a fallacy! This is a fallacy!"

And what "basic set of beliefs and values" do British citizens share? I don't know, and I live here.
Read Neu Leonstein for a few examples.

"You're wrong because you're hurting people, because you're violating basic moral premises required for the coexistence of healthy, happy human beings."

"It is irrelevant what god people pray to,"

"They don't hurt anyone with it, and as a result you don't have the right to hurt them. "

"In a world in which reason isn't the tool to be used, but some sort of wooden club, being and remaining human is not possible. People would simply be masses of organic material with no description or value beyond that."
(OK, I don't think you share this one, but it's still an example)

"As far as we can tell with our own minds, this law is therefore true and both a moral and physical requirement. What the guy thinks about his religion is a personal matter, but a law against violence is universal and there can be no reason for it not to apply to all."





Um, yes. That is what happens. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, alcohol and pork are illegal, and I guarantee you they don't get all angsty about imposing themselves on the poor, widdwe immigrants.
I used the term "expect" in the literal meaning. Expect.

I'm pretty sure the Saudi don't expect the immigrants to really stay away from alcohol when not forced to, for instance.

Read Neu Leonstein for a few examples.
Neu Leonstein is a hun, not a limey.
I used the term "expect" in the literal meaning. Expect.

I'm pretty sure the Saudi don't expect the immigrants to really stay away from alcohol when not forced to, for instance.
They still enforce it as a law, and if someone is caught breaking the law, they are still penalized. What people do inside their own heads is their business, but once they start acting on their beliefs they are bound by the laws of whatever country they happen to be standing in at the moment.

Neu Leonstein is a hun, not a limey.
The entire Western Europe and UK is a single culture. Actually, the entire US, Australia, Europe, UK, and even the former USSR are a single culture, the European Civilization. Three other major cultures are Southeast Asia (India might be a bit special, but still not separate), Middle East, and Africa.


They still enforce it as a law,
It's not "still". It's why they enforce it as a law.

If they expected everyone to do it already, they wouldn't need to make it a law.

Not wholly secular though.... Otherwise they would find in favour of the cases that object to 'God' being in the pledge of allegiance.
And this is a problem because....?

To be human is to have Homo Sapiens genetic code.

To you "mind and reason", to another culture "strength and speed".
You do realise that there are plenty of competitors and predators of the human which have us licked in strength and speed, right? Humans don't survive by working hard, they survive by working smart.

And even if not, it's not anymore.
There has never existed a culture in which could randomly kill each other because they felt like it. The rules against it have always existed, the only differences were in who they applied these rules to, that is who they recognised as a person.

If people were to come together without such a rule, no culture would have time to develop, since these people would be dead within a year.

So? Would it be better if they arrived at it with thought of their own? Because, you know, it's not impossible to do so, given the right mindset.
The mindset needed to arrive at a religion and belief in the supernatural presumes first and foremost that there are things that you cannot know and reason about, that you have to believe.

So no, you can't arrive at a religion through anything other than denying thought.

Of course it's not universal. We apply death penalty, we kill people who grossly violate our rules, just like in Sharia law. The Sharia Law simply has a lower threshold than the Common Law.
I think I made it quite clear that it is utterly irrelevant what "we" do. My argument is independent of my person, my upbringing and any values I may or may not hold dear.

Some penalties are violent responses to the initiation of violence against others. If someone gets hurt because he hurt someone else, that's not an initiation. If the state does it, rather than the individual initially affected, then that's a matter of practicality rather than principle, in effect the victim simply outsourced his moral right to someone more capable of doing the deed.

But whatever the case may be, I have never argued that the law currently enforced in western countries is a reflection of the rules of moral behaviour. It is closer than that enforced in some other countries, but you can find holes all day without affecting what I'm saying.

Morality comes from religion.
That is false. Always has been and always will be. In the majority of cases, the things religions prescribe are blantantly immoral. Not only can people construct the moral code purely on their own, using their senses and their mind, but children without any conception of religion are already very much aware of basic morality, borne from their wish to preserve their selves and their values.

The entire Western Europe and UK is a single culture. Actually, the entire US, Australia, Europe, UK, and even the former USSR are a single culture, the European Civilization.
And you have decided this because...?

Allowing Shara's Laws even in civil proceedings is a huge mistake. Western countries need to stop this now, before there are any precidents allowing it. Same for any other religion. That would be like the Mormon's having their own court system in Utah, the Jews in New York City. Either of those would be totally wrong. First nation's are trying something like this based on their traditional laws, but they were here first, the moslem's were not. These people came here for whatever reason, they should adopt the ways of their host nations, not the other way around.
Are you under the impression that Jews outnumber all other adherents of belief in New York?

http://www.beliefnet.com/politics/religiousaffiliation.html
http://pewforum.org/religion08/state.php?StateID=9
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

You're also confusing why First Nations have their own laws... they're their own sovereign nations on the reservations -- hence treaties between the US government and the First Nations.

You can't expect people to come in with Muslim faith, yet obey Christian/Atheist laws. All you can do is jail them when they break your laws, but they'll still keep following theirs.

It's like letting deeply faithful Christians into a Muslim country, but expecting them to internally accept and obey Sharia law to the letter.
Yes, and?

You go to a country, you obey their law system. You violate their law system, you are punished according to their laws.

Ask this fellow: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4DD1639F935A35756C0A962958260

The entire Western Europe and UK is a single culture. Actually, the entire US, Australia, Europe, UK, and even the former USSR are a single culture, the European Civilization. Three other major cultures are Southeast Asia (India might be a bit special, but still not separate), Middle East, and Africa.
Wow... that's... just... wow... Have you even bothered to study any of those countries you've just lumped together?

If they expected everyone to do it already, they wouldn't need to make it a law.
Hmm, must be why murder is a law on the books then. After all, the powers that be just must expect everyone to kill everyone else if they hadn't bothered making it a law. :rolleyes:

Wow, a Sharia court giving men a free pass on domestic violence? Who would've thought that could happen...

I'm quite glad we don't let any religion pull this kind of shit in the United States. Regardless of what you believe, you should be tried by a secular court, secular jury, and under the force of secular law and I'm glad we have kept it that way because allowing any religious court to arbitrate is going to end in disaster. Somehow, it's always the nutty types that serve on those things and nutty types that use them.

Looks like Britain is losing the last of its political and moral backbone. But don't get to comfortable in the US. I garuntee Huckabee hasn't had his last run for President, and he does want the law to be more in line with the Bible.

In theory, this may be similar to other religious groups having their own tribunals to adjudicate civil issues.

In practice, this will allow a backdoor entry for settling criminal issues too. Will there be an oversight to monitor these?

As it is, the community is not known for 'rebelliousness' and there is enormous pressure to 'conform' and not cause 'fitna'. If a member gets an unfair judgment, it is unlikely an appeal will be pursued because the member will be accused of being against Islam. And this is even more compounded if women is involved.

You're also confusing why First Nations have their own laws... they're their own sovereign nations on the reservations

A fact that US authorities BLITHELY ignore whenever they please.

Based on an hour long BBC documentary, I think Sharia concept is awesome.


Fast trial and for free.

I don't see the problem here, as long as both partners agreed it will be settled by Sharia arbitration, if the wife is unhappy with the punishment, she can press charges in an English law court.

I believe* part of the problem here is that, and I think this is still the case, unless the wife officially presses charges, it's not technically a criminal case, as the police cannot go ahead with charges. Therefore these cases are eligable to be resolved in a civil court, under civil arbitration.

There are obviously clear issues with this, and cultural pressures to use Sharia court may make it very difficult to women to dispute these in criminal courts. But in honesty, if there were not the Sharia courts these cultural pressures would still exist and chances are nothing would be done because the women still wouldn't press criminal charges. Getting rid of the Sharia courts won't solve this, changing the law to allow the police to prosecute even if the victim doesn't press charges will do.


* I believe they are trying to change this so if anyone knows the exact status on UK law I'd be interested to hear.

Meh, as long as they're not breaking/ignoring actual laws, I don't see why they can't have pseudo-courts to deal with conflicts under Sharia law.

I actually think that the very idea of "states rights" and states being allowed to have different laws between each other is stupid. I like the French way of doing it with their Nationa Government.

Do you really, honestly want Southerners to have even more control over your daily lives? You see "states rights" (I hate that term) as a way for people to spread stupidity, I see it partly as a way to contain it. I don't want people who would allow "dry counties" to exist in their own states to have the capability to make such laws for me.

Oh, and it's not L/libertarians who are for "states rights", I'm a socialist and I'm very much an antifederalist.


As for the topic, I agree with the French and their concept of secularism.

You do realise that there are plenty of competitors and predators of the human which have us licked in strength and speed, right? Humans don't survive by working hard, they survive by working smart.
Yes, intelligence gives humans an advantage. But not all cultures put equal emphasis on it. For instance, in the more warlike tribal ones, strength was valued higher.
In Sparta, new children were filtered on physical abilities, not intelligence.



There has never existed a culture in which could randomly kill each other because they felt like it.
Of course, because it's the first point of any kind of pack/tribe/alliance, no randomly killing each other. This is also true for all pack animals.
But that's not "don't kill humans", it's "don't kill your fellow tribesmen".

And again, "killing" != "hurting". The disciplinary wife-beating is clearly an initiation of violence, but it has been well accepted in some cultures in older times. And still is in some.


The rules against it have always existed, the only differences were in who they applied these rules to, that is who they recognised as a person.

This is a "Real Scotsman" argument, as you can always say they kill others because they aren't recognized as persons.

But let's take the case of one tribe/nation splitting and bursting into a war. Do they consider the other side "non-human"? No. But they do kill them off.

Let's take a duel. Is your opponent "non-human"? No. He most definitely is a person. But in earlier European culture, you could call him on a duel (and refusing would mean losing his honor), and kill.

It's not "randomly killing", but no one's talking about randomly. The "killing any humans (including foreigners) is bad" attitude is a part of modern morals. Before it was just "killing your allies is bad", which is practicality.


That is false. Always has been and always will be. In the majority of cases, the things religions prescribe are blantantly immoral.
Religions can't prescribe immoral things. What your religion prescribes becomes moral. And religions usually prescribe things based on already existing rules.
If you follow a religion, then its commandments have to be your definition of morality. You can't follow a religion and consider it immoral at the same time. So one has to go, either the religion or the alternate morals.


Not only can people construct the moral code purely on their own, using their senses and their mind, but children without any conception of religion are already very much aware of basic morality, borne from their wish to preserve their selves and their values.
That's why the kids are constantly fighting each other, of course...

Yes, people can construct a moral code on their own. But single human's morals are meaningless - morals have to be the same in the entire society in order for it to function. They are formed together and taught to new members.



And you have decided this because...?
Because it's the same civilization with minute local differences. You can take a person from any of these countries, bring them to another, and, as long as they know the language, they will easily follow the rules of another country. These countries have the same laws with little difference, the only distinction is Common/Civil law systems, but their results are the same. They all agree with the basic set of morals you've described. All of these societies are strongly egalitarian, they have women and men treated nearly equally, and ancestry has nearly no significance. All these countries have a democratic system. They all are built around the Christian religion and later Atheism. They all, even, celebrate Christmas, though dates might differ. And all of these societies share an idea of respect for individual and his values.

You can, of course, break the European Culture into further cultural subdivisions (especially for studies confined to the European civilization), but their differences are insignificant compared to those between Europe/US/Australia and Middle East, Southeast Asia or Africa.

Do you really, honestly want Southerners to have even more control over your daily lives? You see "states rights" (I hate that term) as a way for people to spread stupidity, I see it partly as a way to contain it. I don't want people who would allow "dry counties" to exist in their own states to have the capability to make such laws for me.

Oh, and it's not L/libertarians who are for "states rights", I'm a socialist and I'm very much an antifederalist.


As for the topic, I agree with the French and their concept of secularism.

Not an issue, all you yankees need to do is start breeding. :p

It's also still not an issue because 7/10 of the most populous states are above the Mason-Dixon and will be for a while. (Florida, Texas, and Georgia being the exceptions, and Florida and Georgia being by far the most "left" of the Southern States)

Because it's the same civilization with minute local differences. You can take a person from any of these countries, bring them to another, and, as long as they know the language, they will easily follow the rules of another country. These countries have the same laws with little difference, the only distinction is Common/Civil law systems, but their results are the same. They all agree with the basic set of morals you've described. All of these societies are strongly egalitarian, they have women and men treated nearly equally, and ancestry has nearly no significance. All these countries have a democratic system. They all are built around the Christian religion and later Atheism. They all, even, celebrate Christmas, though dates might differ. And all of these societies share an idea of respect for individual and his values.

You can, of course, break the European Culture into further cultural subdivisions (especially for studies confined to the European civilization), but their differences are insignificant compared to those between Europe/US/Australia and Middle East, Southeast Asia or Africa.

You'd just be better off breaking down cultures into a predominantly middle class culture, a predominantly impoverished culture and a predominantly moving from impoverished to middle class culture. Except even then, this would be a gross over-simplification. I mean, really. Do you think Japan or Korea are more like China than the US? And what about Arab Africa. Hell, even Morocco is quite different than, say, Jordan. It is also a bit absurd to think that Eastern European "culture" is so similar to Western "culture". In many ways it's closer to a mesh between what you'd call "Asian culture" and Western culture than strictly either or.

Anyway, it was a ridiculous statement and that got pointed out. At the very least, you're going to have to argue this case extremely well to be at all convincing.

I mean, really. Do you think Japan or Korea are more like China than the US?
In some cultural aspects, such as strong collectivism, still yes.
Of course, there is strong Americanization there as well, but it's more of a mixing of two cultures rather than a distinct one.


It is also a bit absurd to think that Eastern European "culture" is so similar to Western "culture". In many ways it's closer to a mesh between what you'd call "Asian culture" and Western culture than strictly either or.
And, for instance, in which specific ways?

Read Neu Leonstein for a few examples [of a basic set of beliefs and values that British citizens share].

"You're wrong because you're hurting people, because you're violating basic moral premises required for the coexistence of healthy, happy human beings."

"It is irrelevant what god people pray to,"

"They don't hurt anyone with it, and as a result you don't have the right to hurt them. "

"In a world in which reason isn't the tool to be used, but some sort of wooden club, being and remaining human is not possible. People would simply be masses of organic material with no description or value beyond that."
(OK, I don't think you share this one, but it's still an example)

"As far as we can tell with our own minds, this law is therefore true and both a moral and physical requirement. What the guy thinks about his religion is a personal matter, but a law against violence is universal and there can be no reason for it not to apply to all."
Not a single one of the above can be described as a 'basic set of beliefs and values that British citizens share'.

The ideas of human rights as 'basic moral premises', the idea that it doesn't matter who you pray to, the Harm Principle, and the law as "true and both a moral and physical requirement" certainly aren't shared by many, many Brits.

Further still, the idea that "the entire Western Europe and UK... actually, the entire US, Australia, Europe, UK, and even the former USSR are a single culture, the European Civilization" is so simplistic and naïve that it's, frankly, laughable. You can, perhaps, find shared values among those promoted by the governments of above nations, but their citizenry (those who matter in this instance) definitely don't share a basic set of beliefs and values.

Otherwise, what's be the need for NS:G? We'd all agree on everything, after all, for the vast majority of us are part of the great European Civilization and share a basic set of beliefs and values.

You yourself can see why this is obviously nonsense.

Religion should be kept separate from the state and from law.

We'd have to change our name. In exchange for uniform laws across the nation, thats a good trade.

We could call ourselves the United Sovereign Alliance. That'd fix the name, let us keep the initials and get certain people off our backs about the whole "American" thing. It's like three birds with one stone.

The entire Western Europe and UK is a single culture. Actually, the entire US, Australia, Europe, UK, and even the former USSR are a single culture, the European Civilization. Three other major cultures are Southeast Asia (India might be a bit special, but still not separate), Middle East, and Africa.

Bullshit.

Not a single one of the above can be described as a 'basic set of beliefs and values that British citizens share'.

The ideas of human rights as 'basic moral premises', the idea that it doesn't matter who you pray to, the Harm Principle, and the law as "true and both a moral and physical requirement" certainly aren't shared by many, many Brits.
Oh my. And I thought Britain is more civilized than US.


You can, perhaps, find shared values among those promoted by the governments of above nations, but their citizenry (those who matter in this instance) definitely don't share a basic set of beliefs and values.
Human rights and equality.

Something not all other cultures agree on.


Otherwise, what's be the need for NS:G? We'd all agree on everything, after all, for the vast majority of us are part of the great European Civilization and share a basic set of beliefs and values.
You don't have to come from different cultures to have disagreements.

Arbitration courts arbitrate in civil court cases, if both parties agree. If you and I have a disagreement over money I owe you, we can go to court to sort it out, but alternatively we could ask a trusted mutual friend to arbitrate, or a lawyer friend, or a religious authority, or someone else; all of our choosing.

We've had multiple threads on this already this year.

What the issue is here is whether the courts mentioned in the OP are overstepping their boundaries. If the report is accurate, I believe they are.

I see no problem with people allowing their contract to exist under an alternate legal system provided both parties agree to it at the time of that contract being created, nor with them having a civil case arbitrated by a party other than standard courts, again provided both sides agree from the beginning.

That people object to the sharia courts have said nothing about the Beth Din courts. If we are to stop the sharia courts, we must also stop Beth Din courts, and the idea of independent mediation/arbitration as a whole in these cases.

If they are overstepping their mark, which it seems they may, then this should be stopped. Domestic violence law in the UK is screwed as it is anyway, and the whole approach to these cases need to be reworked. Personally I don't think "domestic violence" should exist it's assault, ABH, GBH, rape or whatever. The fact you committed it against your partner in your own apartment doesn't magically make the effects less serious.

It's more aimed at prosecuting people who commit crimes abroad for which there is no law in the state where they commit them.

I think they are concerned with specific crimes, as fartsniffage says, like sex tourism.

As if the crimes were crimes in the country committed, they would probably extradite.

Yep. An attempt to keep the Garry Glitters of this world in check.

Overall, I'm pretty much indifferent to the idea of sharia courts, provided they cannot act in contravention to UK law, and feel the same for Beth Din. Howeverm I'd like to know what those who oppose of sharia think of Beth Dinm as it seems to be to be less a case of an issue with arbitration or more a case of "teh eb1l muzl1mz contaminatin' r essenshul bod1ly fluidz!!!"

In some cultural aspects, such as strong collectivism, still yes.
Of course, there is strong Americanization there as well, but it's more of a mixing of two cultures rather than a distinct one.
Thank you for proving that you haven't in fact bothered to study these cultures.

I see no problem with individuals working out their differences with any arbitration or counselling panels they choose. There is a big however, though.......it must be genuinely mutual and voluntary. Pressure and intimidation of the weaker party is not on!

There are advantages to avoiding state courts in some cases - the media sniffing round them for gossip is one that I can think of.

Overall, I'm pretty much indifferent to the idea of sharia courts, provided they cannot act in contravention to UK law, and feel the same for Beth Din. Howeverm I'd like to know what those who oppose of sharia think of Beth Dinm as it seems to be to be less a case of an issue with arbitration or more a case of "teh eb1l muzl1mz contaminatin' r essenshul bod1ly fluidz!!!"

My issue with the Sharia courts is that they are handling non-civil cases. I have not found any evidence the Beth Din are. That's the difference.