Sharia Law Comes to West Australia

[Fullaut0]

Heres an interesting new development:


THE creation of a WA board of imams to mediate between Muslims on civil disputes is not an attempt to introduce full sharia law, the Islamic Council of WA says. The council began to set up the board following a recommendation at last September's conference of Australian imams in Sydney for national and state boards of imams.

The Islamic Council of WA's religious adviser, Abdul Jalil Ahmad, said individual imams had been providing advice on issues such as divorce and commercial and property disputes based on sharia law for years.

Mr Ahmad said a state body was needed to provide unified and clear decisions.

"We're not talking about full sharia law, sharia criminal law,'' Mr Ahmad said.

"We will deal with civil matters only, nothing to do with criminal matters, so there's nothing to be scared of.''

But Ethnic Communities Council of WA spokesman Suresh Rajan said it was dangerous to mix religion and civil law.

"Once you start to get into a legal system based upon religious principles, a greater risk of interpretational difficulties will come up,'' Mr Rajan said.

Mr Rajan said any board of imams would have to report to the federal attorney-general to ensure its resolutions did not conflict with Australian law.

"It may be a step in the right direction in formalising the process but we still need to have prudential controls to ensure it is not overstepping decisions of the civil court.

"And, let's be honest, sharia law in its extreme form can be quite barbaric.''
But Mr Ahmad said sharia law was often misunderstood.

"Sharia is very broad, it includes also the act of washing, we pray five times a day, that's part of sharia as well.''

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said a board of imams would be allowed to settle differences out of court but would not be allowed to pass judgment on disputes.
My question is: why the hell don't we all have our own little personal legal systems?

Mine, for example, would be administered by a board of busty ladies of lax morals.

Actually, I've got a better idea: I might go to Iran and lobby for a niche legal system based on the less barbaric tennets of the Westminster system. I hear that they're mucho tolerant.

[alfigel]

My question is: why the hell don't we all have our own little personal legal systems?

I think you don't really get it. This is about building up a system of mediation. Mediation isn't an "own little personal legal system", but a way of resolving disputes with the help of a neutral third party _before_ going to court (which is something many people don't strive for, especially in civil matters). I don't see any obligations for anyone having to stick to this board. Mediations as a way of trying to resolve civil matters between two parties has been around for quite a long time. The only difference here is that it's for and within the Muslim community. Other religions (such as LDS, Jehova's Witnesses) resolve their disputes between their members in a similar fashion, and nobody finds that objectionable.

[n4292936]

ha! the polies would be all over this like white on rice if it was an attempt to introduce Sharia law. There are several precedents in both Australia and North America where community based justice has been either trialed or used unilateraly in small communities with the hope of acheiving a smaller recitivism rate than normal. It does work sometimes, but I'm sure Australia doesn't need to worry about our legal system being usurped by Sharia law.

[Fullaut0]

I think you don't really get it. This is about building up a system of mediation. Mediation isn't an "own little personal legal system", but a way of resolving disputes with the help of a neutral third party _before_ going to court (which is something many people don't strive for, especially in civil matters). I don't see any obligations for anyone having to stick to this board. Mediations as a way of trying to resolve civil matters between two parties has been around for quite a long time. The only difference here is that it's for and within the Muslim community. Other religions (such as LDS, Jehova's Witnesses) resolve their disputes between their members in a similar fashion, and nobody finds that objectionable.


A neutral third party applying the principles of Sharia law? How is that even remotely neutral - it's got a religious basis.

Second: what precisely does an imam know about divorce, commercial and property disputes?


Conclusion: another example of a persistant failure to integrate.

[Nano]

I believe Israel has something similar to this where Muslims or Jews can settle things based upon their respective religious laws. It is a failure to a certain degree for Muslims to integrate into a secular society or for that society to integrate them through their immigration processes.

[Fullaut0]

ha! the polies would be all over this like white on rice if it was an attempt to introduce Sharia law. There are several precedents in both Australia and North America where community based justice has been either trialed or used unilateraly in small communities with the hope of acheiving a smaller recitivism rate than normal. It does work sometimes, but I'm sure Australia doesn't need to worry about our legal system being usurped by Sharia law.

I'd prefer to stand by the title of this thread: it's introducing elements from Sharia law (other than those relating to criminal aspects) - that much is clear.

It's also the work of a prominent politician. Theres a federal election coming up. Hmmmm....

[n4292936]

yeah, some elements of the defence establishment are fretting over that last point, sorry about the digression.

[alfigel]

A neutral third party applying the principles of Sharia law? How is that even remotely neutral - it's got a religious basis.

Nobody forces Muslims or anybody else to actually go there. They have to _want_ to go there. Also, the third party is absolutely neutral, neutral towards the parties going to the mediation.


Second: what precisely does an imam know about divorce, commercial and property disputes?

You don't know what a mediation is, do you? You go there when you want to reach a solution out of court. You discuss your issues and try to reach a compromise that satisfies both parties. The neutral mediator helps both parties with this. In case of an outcome that satisfies both parties, you make a contract about the compromise, and both parties then adhere to this contract. That's it.

In this special case, the mediator is an Imam and brings his knowledge about all aspects of Muslim traditions and religious laws into the mediation. To say this again, nobody is forced to take part in this. This is about mediation, not jurisdiction. It even says so in the article.


Conclusion: another example of a persistant failure to integrate.

Conclusion: another example of persistent prejudices against Muslims.

[Bushranger]

Conclusion: another example of persistent prejudices against Muslims.[/quote]

Are you serious, prejudice against mulims. Dont they get it in Australia we have our state & federal laws & that it end of story you cant just say we want to do it our way, ok if you have narriage porbs go chat to the imam, the big problem with the world is when people let religion come into politics & law. Religion isnt the end all to be all.

fed up with hearing muslim this & that.............aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.

[Sato]

I don't think you're getting the point of these boards (NOT courts...)

[Bushranger]

i get it just over hearing about this stuff.

[Fullaut0]

I don't think you're getting the point of these boards (NOT courts...)

Look, we all understand the difference between a board and a court.

The issue that I initially raised was aimed at the question: is it necessary?

My opinion is: no it is not.

We don't have a specialised board for every single ethnic group now do we?

I am an immigrant. I don't demand that the substantial community of which I am a part has it's own board, tribunal or whatever. Quite frankly that would be absurd and irresponsible. Instead I accept the law of this land.

Lets look at mediation shall we? Recent changes to the rules of the Family Court of Western Australia require all potential parties to undergo mediation prior to commencing a court action. What is wrong with this mediation program that it require's this additional specialist board or tribunal? Are people of the muslim religion so numerous in Western Australia that they require it? Or are they having so many more problems than the average Australian citizen?

No and no.

So what gives? What is the motivation? Someone enlighten me with something other than knee jerk politically correct bullsh*t.

[alfigel]

Look, we all understand the difference between a board and a court.

The issue that I initially raised was aimed at the question: is it necessary?

My opinion is: no it is not.

Is it necessary? No. Is it helpful? Yes, absolutely. If you assess things only by its necessity then you will have very little things.

I see two real benefits in this board and the whole mediation process: on one side, it helps Muslims live after their religious laws if they decide to do so, it can resolve issues with members of the Muslim community, and by trying to resolve private law issues out of court by striving for compromises, they also help unburden the civil courts.

A quite similar situation would be a board of Rabbis that gives advise on on Halakha-related issues and helps parties resolve disputes by bringing in their knowledge and experience. And there's nothing about that, is it?


I am an immigrant. I don't demand that the substantial community of which I am a part has it's own board, tribunal or whatever. Quite frankly that would be absurd and irresponsible. Instead I accept the law of this land.

So do they. This board doesn't want to replace federal law or something, all they do is that they offer a service to the Muslim community.


Lets look at mediation shall we? Recent changes to the rules of the Family Court of Western Australia require all potential parties to undergo mediation prior to commencing a court action. What is wrong with this mediation program that it require's this additional specialist board or tribunal? Are people of the muslim religion so numerous in Western Australia that they require it? Or are they having so many more problems than the average Australian citizen?

No and no.

Mediation is so much more than family-related stuff. You can resolve a majority of the cases that falls into private law with a mediation. And this board is a service to the Muslim community for parties who deliberately choose to be mediated by a person with knowledge about Muslim religious laws. As mentioned before in this thread, other religions already do this, although less formal. My guess why that board was established was because the Muslim community is a lot more fragmented than e.g. LDS or Jehova's Witnesses, whose communities usually have close links within.


So what gives? What is the motivation? Someone enlighten me with something other than knee jerk politically correct bullsh*t.

Probably the Imams in Australia see a necessity for it. But does that matter? They have the right to freely exercise their religion, what they do is perfectly legal, and this mediation board doesn't affect your life in the slightest. So why do you even care about it?

[Kaapeli]

This doesn't seem different from going to a priest or a marriage councelor for advice.

[Fullaut0]

Is it necessary? No. Is it helpful? Yes, absolutely. If you assess things only by its necessity then you will have very little things.

I see two real benefits in this board and the whole mediation process: on one side, it helps Muslims live after their religious laws if they decide to do so, it can resolve issues with members of the Muslim community, and by trying to resolve private law issues out of court by striving for compromises, they also help unburden the civil courts.

A quite similar situation would be a board of Rabbis that gives advise on on Halakha-related issues and helps parties resolve disputes by bringing in their knowledge and experience. And there's nothing about that, is it?



So do they. This board doesn't want to replace federal law or something, all they do is that they offer a service to the Muslim community.



Mediation is so much more than family-related stuff. You can resolve a majority of the cases that falls into private law with a mediation. And this board is a service to the Muslim community for parties who deliberately choose to be mediated by a person with knowledge about Muslim religious laws. As mentioned before in this thread, other religions already do this, although less formal. My guess why that board was established was because the Muslim community is a lot more fragmented than e.g. LDS or Jehova's Witnesses, whose communities usually have close links within.



Probably the Imams in Australia see a necessity for it. But does that matter? They have the right to freely exercise their religion, what they do is perfectly legal, and this mediation board doesn't affect your life in the slightest. So why do you even care about it?

Well, I guess we'll just have to see what the future brings...

[Fullaut0]

Mediation is so much more than family-related stuff. You can resolve a majority of the cases that falls into private law with a mediation.

BTW if the above were true, I'd be living on the streets, but that's hardly the point of this thread.

[Kant]

Jewish boards of mediation have been operating in Australia and other Western countries for years.
I won't be losing sleep over it, and if this is an Australian Muslim attempt at instituting sharia law, it's a piss poor one.

[dedgod]

Is it necessary? No. Is it helpful? Yes, absolutely. If you assess things only by its necessity then you will have very little things.

I see two real benefits in this board and the whole mediation process: on one side, it helps Muslims live after their religious laws if they decide to do so, it can resolve issues with members of the Muslim community, and by trying to resolve private law issues out of court by striving for compromises, they also help unburden the civil courts.

A quite similar situation would be a board of Rabbis that gives advise on on Halakha-related issues and helps parties resolve disputes by bringing in their knowledge and experience. And there's nothing about that, is it?



So do they. This board doesn't want to replace federal law or something, all they do is that they offer a service to the Muslim community.



Mediation is so much more than family-related stuff. You can resolve a majority of the cases that falls into private law with a mediation. And this board is a service to the Muslim community for parties who deliberately choose to be mediated by a person with knowledge about Muslim religious laws. As mentioned before in this thread, other religions already do this, although less formal. My guess why that board was established was because the Muslim community is a lot more fragmented than e.g. LDS or Jehova's Witnesses, whose communities usually have close links within.



The problem with these sharia courts is that in a lot of places where they exist (India, Pakistan, and most of the Arab world)...they are grossly misused, and eventually *will* lead to a battle between the sharia courts and the legal system.

In india, for example, iirc, there was a case where the sharia court said it was ok to divorce your wife by saying the word "divorce" three times..that's islamic law...What's more they said it was valid *even* if the husband said it in a drunken stupor. I'm not sure what happenned to that case...I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would have ruled against it, but most muslims (mostly the men) are for it..Surprise surprise.

What's more, is that women, who are already prejudiced against in Islam, will have an even upward battle. How many of them would dare challenge the ruling of a sharia court, in the legal system...?? And face an "honor" killing..

There are things that sharia courts can be useful for ..but they have the potential to be grossly misused...

[alfigel]

The problem with these sharia courts is that in a lot of places where they exist (India, Pakistan, and most of the Arab world)...they are grossly misused, and eventually *will* lead to a battle between the sharia courts and the legal system.

Please read the article again. This is not a Sharia court, but mediation with Imams who have knowledge in the Sharia (from it's importance within the religion, Sharia can be compared to e.g. the Hanakha in Judaism). It is explicitly mentioned in the article that they would not pass judgment on disputes.


There are things that sharia courts can be useful for ..but they have the potential to be grossly misused...

The competencies of mentioned board is clearly defined. It's not about jurisdiction, it's solely about mediation. Please read the article before making any assumptions about whether this will introduce "Sharia courts" in Australia.

[ShotOver]

As a West Australian, I feel it is my right to post in this thread.

My post goes as this: I have no idea what the holy crap is going on, I never heard about it until I read this - so therefore it is not a big deal.

[oldsoak]

Alfigel - we had this in the UK. It led to the Muslim Parliament of Great Britian and a proposal to the Labour party who were in power at the time for a two tier legal system in return for their vote. They wanted Sharia for Muslims, with infidels being judged by the normal system. The Labour party refused.
@ PT - its no biggy now - just remember what led to the above.

[gilgoul]

Jewish boards of mediation have been operating in Australia and other Western countries for years.
I won't be losing sleep over it, and if this is an Australian Muslim attempt at instituting sharia law, it's a piss poor one.

as far as I know and understand, I may be wrong on that, but the jewish boards have absolutely no legal biding whatsoever, they are made for members who wish to abide by them for their own personal convenience.
For instance, if I get married both administratively and religiously in any country, I get, if I did a prenup, two marriage contracts.
One, the Ketuba, that is the religious recognition of my marriage. And another one, legally biding, recognizing my marriage legally by the courts and laws of the country of residence.
Now, if I divorce, I'll go to a civilian court, or sign a divorce legal ****ouncement that will be legally binding, and will legally be allowed to re-marry the day after.
While to be religiously, and religiously only, be allowed to remarry, I'll need to give a "get" to my ex-wife (document signifying the renouncement to the bound of marriage).

there is a great difference between this type of "council" or board, or whatever you want to call it, and the claim of whatever religious group (mine included) to ask to see it's own law superseding the "law of the king", or to put it clearly, the law of the country of residence.

There is a big difference between such a council and the claim to build a parallel legal system.

About the situation in Israel, only the matters of marriage and inheritance can be set in front of the religious council courts. And their decisions cannot supersede the decisions of civilian courts. This for instance led to the recognition by the ministry of interior, which is the ultimate decision maker in this field, of the recognition (reluctantly though) of the first gay wedding of a Jerusalem couple.

[dedgod]

Please read the article again. This is not a Sharia court, but mediation with Imams who have knowledge in the Sharia (from it's importance within the religion, Sharia can be compared to e.g. the Hanakha in Judaism). It is explicitly mentioned in the article that they would not pass judgment on disputes.
When they say they will not pass judgement on disputes..that means criminal disputes...They are still going to pass judgement on domestic civil disputes..At least that what the article leads me to believe....If they aren't then i don't see the whole point of this exercise...



The competencies of mentioned board is clearly defined. It's not about jurisdiction, it's solely about mediation. Please read the article before making any assumptions about whether this will introduce "Sharia courts" in Australia.
Ok , so we won't call it a sharia court. But they are still going to "mediate" on religious/civil matter no? So if a woman appears before one such mediator ,because her husband was drunk and used the word "divorce" three times..and the mediator says well too bad, that means you are divorced. What then? Is this a criminal case? Nope...its civil..
Will the woman dare to pursue the case with the judicial system of the land? I don't think so...

My point is that extremist Islam, whether you like to believe it or not, is prejudiced against women. Making something like this "official" will make it worse.

Funnily, I'd be happier if they dealt with criminal issues. They are pretty strict. Its the civil issues that worry me more....And they affect a much larger audience...

just my 0.02

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I always news WA was full of softies. First they allow traditional Aboriginal justice and now this.

What's next? Allowing PT and Digs to get married.

[Warlord]

Give an inch.....another inch.....another......