Talk:Islamic Sharia Council

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

One of the worst articles I've ever seen. If I had the time, I'd do the research. This is heavily biased, and comes very close to being a candidate for deletion. Can someone look at this and try to clean it up? Leonnatus (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the entire "Criticism" section. Utterly ridiculous it was there, I've found no reliable criticism of ISC, but just general criticism of Sharia in general which is no surprise. --Nutthida (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration or Jurisdiction[edit]

The Islamic sharia court has no Jurisdiction..it is more of arbitrary court..One has to go through this process to get Islamic Divorce especially if it's petitioned by the wives. Once the process is complete "lengthy" one still has to petition for state divorce as Sharia divorce is not considered same as state divorce..One can only register one state Marriage and divorce in uk at one time..

If the sharia divorce is complete and state divorce not..although religiously one might marry again..But will remain legally married to previous partner unless state divorce is complete. This straight away makes sharia council in this country powerless..It's benefitting women more than men..as they can use there religious rights to free themselves from sour marriages..The sharia court increasingly support arbitration than divorce between a couple..Hence applications from wives are often discouraged..In islam Muslim can divorce there wives with the use of word TALAQ pronounced three times..if said within presence of witnesses..The marriage is immediately declared finished.. And most importantly if one was to Petition for state divorce before the Sharia divorce..One would still have to obtain sharia divorce..(ladies). Saeeda abbas (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be useful information, although some of it may not be from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We cannot add it without a citable source. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status[edit]

We give contradictory information about the Sharia Council's legal status: "The council has no legal authority United Kingdom", sourced from The Guardian, and "Muslim tribunals exploit a legal loophole which allows sharia courts to be classified as arbitration courts, which allows their rulings to be binding in law", sourced from the Daily Express. If the council has no legal authority then its rulings are not binding in law. (The rulings might be binding if the parties had made a legal contract to accept them, but this would make the sentence misleading.)

The Guardian is usually considered as a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy, albeit with a Liberal viewpoint. In contrast, the Daily Express has a history of sensational or unbalanced reporting of Islamic issues (detailed in the Leveson Report [1]). For this reason I favour the version sourced to The Guardian and will delete the conflicting sentence sourced to the Daily Express.

The Daily Express article is also cited as a source for "The Council operates 16 tribunals in Britain, including in Birmingham, Bradford and London." This is not supported by the ISC website and it seems unlikely that the council has permanently-established tribunals in 16 places. I will also delete this sentence. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]