[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Gayle

You stopped short in your first post - the next bit said

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.


If BOTH parties agree - so if you're never going to agree to the decision by a sharia court you can't be tried in one!

I could have reproduced the whole article but that would have taken up a lot of room so I opted to quote the first few paragraphs followed by:
You can read more at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Actually the next bit was,
“Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals.”

Then came, “The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.”

If BOTH parties agree - so if you're never going to agree to the decision by a sharia court you can't be tried in one!

You don’t get a decision by any court until AFTER you have been tried.

If a Muslim takes you to a Sharia court in a civil dispute and you don’t turn up to defend yourself, the plaintiff can get judgement, just like in a County Court for a civil case. Then, “Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court” comes into play.

So you get a judgement against you in a Sharia court, which is then enforceable through the County or High Courts.