Talk:Muslim Arbitration Tribunal

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Islam: Islam and Controversy 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.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

The entry "Rulings can be enforced in both the County Courts and the High Court.[1]" is misleading. The article cited quotes the ministry of justice: 'In all arbitrations, decisions will be enforceable by the English courts if the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act are satisfied. If any decisions by these Tribunals were illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, they would not be enforceable.'. The existing entry suggests that English Courts would defer to Sharia court decisions, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.31.189 (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual Consent?

I assume both sides must agree to going through the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal rather than the usual court process and that either party can bow out of this arbitration process at any time before a final ruling and/or appeal a decision of the Tribunal. If this isn't so, it should be noted in the article. Ileanadu (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political reaction - Grieve quotation

I have deleted these comments on the Grieve quotation:

'Although he suggests an interesting difference in the practice of law between sharia and other legal systems, his contention falls at his mention of "British Law", because there is no such thing as "British Law". There are different laws in different countries within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Dominic Grieve's comment "I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful" ought to be thought about, and discussed with respect to the laws of each country within the United Kingdom.'

I personally agree with the opinions given on what Grieve said, but I've checked the Wikipedia guidance on Neutral point of view, and it seems clear to me that the text I deleted gives unsourced opinions on the quotation - Wikipedia doesn't decide whether comments are 'interesting', or in which context they 'ought to be thought about'.

I know that there is no single legal system for the whole of Britain, but I think the statement that 'there is no such thing as British law' is arguable, rather than a statement of absolute fact, because each of the legal systems is based in a part of Britain. Laws made in Scotland, for example, can be described as British, even when they don't apply in England, because Scotland is still part of Britain. In the same way, a Scottish person can still be described as British.

Valentino76 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

misleading entry

The entry "Rulings can be enforced in both the County Courts and the High Court.[1]" is misleading. The article cited quotes the ministry of justice: 'In all arbitrations, decisions will be enforceable by the English courts if the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act are satisfied. If any decisions by these Tribunals were illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, they would not be enforceable.'. The existing entry suggests that English Courts would defer to Sharia court decisions, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.31.189 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

misleading entry

The entry "Rulings can be enforced in both the County Courts and the High Court.[1]" is misleading. The article cited quotes the ministry of justice: 'In all arbitrations, decisions will be enforceable by the English courts if the requirements of the 1996 Arbitration Act are satisfied. If any decisions by these Tribunals were illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, they would not be enforceable.'. The existing entry suggests that English Courts would defer to Sharia court decisions, which is not the case.

81.152.31.189 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)bank May 29 2013[reply]

Deletion

The vast majority of citations are dead links. The remaining few don't offer much in the way of information, one of which is just stating there's a petition to remove these tribunals. Tastybaldeagle (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tastybaldeagle To know more about deletion read this WP:MULTIAFD --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]