An abitration service that both Muslims and non-Muslims can go to to settle their personal disputes – how can I possibly object?
Actually, the question should be ‘how can I possibly support this’. Firstly, claiming to put weight on oral agreements is fraught with problems. You might have noticed that the British legal system is founded on the basis of requiring EVIDENCE that something has or has not occurred. For gods sake, even ’Judge Judy’ requires the participants to provide evidence about what allegedly happened!
If both parties agree on the terms then so be it, but it leaves your rulings wide open to subjectivity and distortion. Secondly, why is it that someone would use a Sharia court for abitration instead of a non-religious organisation? Hmmm?
Why do you think that might be? Do you really think it all comes down to efficiency and cost-effectiveness? Seeing as Islam has a well-deserved reputation on unequal rights for women, for example, I can see why Sharia courts would be extremely popular with certain sections of the community. [Letters From A Tory] Read more
