The Centre for Social Cohesion rightly sounds like the space between a Tory MP's butt cheeks.

Quilliam's Hussein's 'Ed belongs there.
''On me 'Ed son''

This article is disingenuous insofar as no rabbi asserts that the Beth Din should have primacy over UK law either in authority or allegiance. We all are aware that there are so called imams who do assert this in relation to Sharia, Muslims and UK law.
Additionally Judaism unlike either Christianity or Islam does not perceive itself to be the exclusive or final expression of Gods will, nor does it seek universal conversion to its tenets. As a consequence Judaism and the associated jurisprudence (Beth Din etc) do not present themselves as a threat to the UK establishment nor the lives of the UK majority.
It is time that we stood up like adults and recognised that our emotive and often irrational utterances can cause offence and disturb our neighbours. We should stop trying to run and hide behind the skirts of the Jews when it suits us. We should learn to be quiet, and consider exactly how others hear and understand us.

...MPACUK should not link to anti-Muslim web-sites

Spreading hate and then moaning like a little nancy about being banned.. makes sense.

Could you elaborate on your "so called imams who do assert this in relation to Sharia, Muslims and UK law." I have not heard of any religious leaders, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian, who have said that faith-based tribunals must have primacy over UK law (apart from a few extremist crackpots.)

What utter tripe...Shariah councils in this country act effectively as arbitration bodies, primarily on issues related to marriage and divorce, civil disputes...which do not seek to replace or supersede UK law, but act in a similar way to the Beth Din courts do..to try and extrapolate this to, as you infer, a 'threat to the UK establishment' is just disingeneous, inflammatory Islamophobic nonsense, that neither reflects the reality or the purpose of these councils.
A number of countries permit civil arbitration based on different religous tenets, e.g. India's civil code incorporates Muslim personal law into it's framework quite effectively...which is not even being called for by these councils...so rather than jumping on a neo-con inspired agenda , which no doubt you are trying to propagate here, I would think before you type...

Excuse me, are you referring to www.1party4all.co.uk?

If so, please cite any statements that you think is evidence of Islamophobia.

The basic difference between Beth Din and Sharia laws are that Beth Din courts are in line with the British legal system where divorce and inheritance are concerned whereas under British law Sharia courts are not. (Males and females being equals under British law).

Therefore Beth Din rulings are within British law but Sharia law isn't. This is why Sharia is viewed as a parallel legal system whilst the Jewish arbitration tribunals are not.

Having said that I think that tribunal courts are not used often enough - it certainly hurries things up instead of waiting for District or High Court rulings and paying the expenses of over priced lawyers.

But I was under the impression that the Islamic school of thought is that muslims should obey the laws of the country in which they currently live.

The point is that Jewish people who wish to follow the tenets of their faith regarding civil issues, through Beth Din, are allowed recourse to a body of religous law, whose decisions based on mutual arbitration can be accepted by British law.
This is essentially the same as Sharia courts.In terms of divorce Beth Din requires the man to initiate the proceedings, so the premise of 'equality' is not actually the same...in fact the vast majority of cases in Shariah courts are brought by women who can secure through 'khula' a separation without the complexities and time of civil courts..since the decision arrived at is based on mutual arbitration these can logically be accepted in civil proceedings, just like the Beth Din..

Most Muslims in the UK enter into a marriage based on Nikah contract, which is an Islamic requirement which cannot be overturned by a civil dissolution only and needs to be dissolved in a way compatible with Islamic tenets..that is where the Shariah courts play an important role in arbitration and can actually speed up the legal process..so they can be supplementary to the existing body of law.

The reality is that this campaign is just another populist Islamophobic rant, since Muslims are easy targets in the media and press.as part of a general attack on Islamic values and tenets...

A society can only be authetically 'multi-cultural' if there is a consensus to allow for multi- jurisdictions embodying the jurisprudential values of the different cultures inhabiting the same space. A recipe for disharmony if there ever was one.
In fact behind the obfuscating trees the UK is a mono-cultural liberal democratic, constitutional christian state.

Wait till the Tories get ya!!