At a glance: Sharia law in Britain
The remarks by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, have seen the media and politicians unleash a vicious wave of Islamophobia, from the ravings of the tabloid press, to the disgraceful Independent on Sunday splash about domestic violence and the shocking claims about “inbreeding” by Phil Woolas MP, who has responded to the current hysteria by leaping head-first into the racist gutter.
What are the basic facts behind the Muslim-baiting?
1. Most British Muslims do not demand Sharia law.
- Muslim Council of Britain: “We do not wish to see a parallel system or a separate system of judiciary for Muslims.”
- Shaista Gohir, government adviser: “The majority of Muslims do not want it. Many Muslim commentators and the media are wrongly assuming that all Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.”
2. What British Muslims want is for the UK, US and Israel to end their bloody occupations of Muslim countries.
3. They want an end to the racism against British Muslims, who are overwhelmingly dark-skinned.
4. A 2004 ICM poll found 61% of British Muslims might support Sharia courts being introduced in Britain, but only to resolve civil cases within the Muslim community, and only so long as the penalties did not contravene British law.
5. Archbishop Rowan Williams argued for “a delegation of certain legal functions to the religious courts of a community”, not for an extensive parallel legal system. The aspects of Sharia being considered by Williams are restricted to matters of family and finance law, i.e. civil matters. No one is suggesting introducing an Islamic penal code.
6. Religious courts already operate in this country for Orthodox Jews. Why shouldn’t Muslims enjoy the same right?
7. Sharia courts also operate in the UK, although without official recognition and concentrating only on mundane issues such as inheritance and divorce. Many British Muslims are already married under Sharia law, eat meat slaughtered by it, and bank according to it.
8. The UK is already amending its finance laws to allow Sharia-compliant products such as halal mortgages and Islamic bonds, in part to attract billions of petro-dollars from the cash-rich Gulf.
9. Ontario, Canada, for 15 years had a system of “faith based arbitration” whereby family issues such as inheritance and property division could be adjudicated by religious authorities. In 2005 Ontario’s attorney general reviewed how the system worked for Muslims and “did not find any evidence to suggest that women are being systematically discriminated against as a result of arbitration of family law issues”.
10. Criticism of Islam segues effortlessly with prejudice against black immigrants. “Niggers out” no longer wins many votes, but Muslim-bashing presses the same political buttons. For our rulers, Islam is a doubly-convenient scapegoat for resistance to the West’s “war on terror”. Any discussion of Islam today is therefore a discussion about war and about racism. By ignoring this basic fact the media join hands with the racists and the warmongers.
For the latest, see the excellent resource islamophobia-watch.com
February 12th, 2008 at 10:49 am
You say that divorce is a mundane issue. The mind reels at the presumption behind that statement. You go on to say: “Ontario, Canada, for 15 years had a system of “faith based arbitration” whereby family issues such as inheritance and property division could be adjudicated by religious authorities. In 2005 Ontario’s attorney general reviewed how the system worked for Muslims and “did not find any evidence to suggest that women are being systematically discriminated against as a result of arbitration of family law issues”.”
However, reporting on the Williams affair on February 9th in the Canadian journal ‘Globe and Mail’, Doug Saunders writes: “Within some Muslim communities in Britain, sharia tribunals have been used to settle disputes out of court and sometimes to mediate divorces (the father always gets custody). This is exactly what some officials in Ontario proposed a couple of years ago; wisely, they reversed themselves.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080208.wreckoning0209/BNStory/International/home
Not all Muslim organisations are as sanguine as you are about the Archbishop’s comments:
“British Muslims for Secular Democracy (BMSD) disagrees with the comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams suggesting that the incorporation of Sharia law in Britain is unavoidable. The assertions are based on untested presumptions.
Dr Williams’ recommendations are not backed by any evidence that might indicate that the majority of British Muslims support the introduction of Sharia to settle civil disputes. Moreover, British Muslims are not a homogenous group. Diverse communities and individuals hold distinct views on religious practice, cultural and social customs based on their geographical and ethnic backgrounds and their evolving European identities. Therefore it would be difficult to even contemplate the idea of having a single set of laws applied to every Muslim, in order to govern their matters.
BMSD believes that the concept of parallel justice systems, different for various communities based on their religious beliefs is in effect a denial of the principles of gender equality and inclusion and shared citizenship. The western legal systems grant men and women equal rights under a single set of rules.
BMSD would like to point out that many aspects of the Sharia Law remain controversial and contested across the world and among Muslim scholars. Some Islamic jurisprudence experts promote Sharia rules that contravene the Human Rights Act and civil liberties guaranteed under the English laws, such as freedom of expression, rights of women in cases of divorce, inheritance and testimony in court.
Dr Shaaz Mahboob of BMSD said, “Dr Williams makes unacceptable generalisations about the collective will of Muslims and appears to be unaware that there is great dissent among Muslims about the validity applicability of Sharia. Setting up the of Sharia law as a parallel justice system for British Muslim communities this will not promote social cohesion and community relations. The establishment of any justice systems based on religious belief, cultural practices or social norms has the potential to further alienate communities from each other and to create concrete barriers which harm the social fabric of the society.”
from: BRITISH MUSLIMS FOR SECULAR DEMOCRACY (BMSD) REACTION OVER ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY’S VIEWS ABOUT INTRODUCTION OF SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN, PRESS RELEASE - 7th FEBRUARY 2008
Many observant Jews will tell you there is a lot wrong with the ‘Beth Din’ system. That women who want to remarry in a synogogue have a rough time if their divorce is not recognised by Beth Din. The phenomenon of ‘chained women’ is a pernicious aspect of Beth Din and has been widely criticised.
One of the leading sheikhs presiding over informal Sharia courts - informal in the sense that they are not adopted into British civil law - in Channel 4’s programme on 3 February “Divorce, Sharia Style” opined that it would be a good idea if lopping off hands for the crime of theft and stoning those who commit adultery were introduced into British law. It should be stressed that it is not yet the practice under British law. If everyone is equal before the law and the Archbishop is safely confident that this is so, it is curious why in the spirit of ecumenicism he hasn’t yet suggested introducing Sharia law into Christianity. Now that really would be the acid test of his commitment to British civil society and its equitable practices. If he thinks that Sharia law is good enough for Muslim women, then surely it is good enough for Christian women…
February 12th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
The editor replies: The use of the word “mundane” was in the sense of wordly or ordinary, and was in no way meant to underestate the importance of divorce law. “Civil” would have been a less ambiguous choice. The comments from BSDM, however, fully confirm points 1 and 4 above. As for Doug Saunders’ remark, the opinion of the Ontario attorney general surely trumps that of a newspaper columist.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I am terribly heartened by this blog and this has really helped my own arguments. I have been utterly shocked by the Islamaphobic response to Dr Williams’ suggestion.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Dear Media Workers Against The War,
My partner and I were at the speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Royal Courts of Justice last Thursday, fairly near the front, just behind the rows of seats which were reserved for Britain’s leading Judges and other dignatories.
My observation is that his speech was measured and reasonable in almost every respect. My only criticism is that, for a speech directed at lawyers and non-lawyers alike, Dr Williams used rather a lot of technical jargon such as “positivism”, “universalism”, “jurisprudence” etc.
If any of the negative assertions of the press had been correct, the Judges would have been incensed. Instead, they clapped enthuisiastically, showing that the Archbishop’s ideas are fully in accordance with English law.
People who attended enjoyed the Archbishop’s friendly and welcoming approach. Although he is clearly a very intellectual individual, in questions and answers, he was willing to consider all sorts of contributions from people of many different backgrounds.
I am very glad that Media Workers Against the War exists and is making such a brave and determined stand, sometimes at the risk of their own jobs, against the excesses of unreliable proprietors, such as Messrs Murdoch, Rothermere and Desmond.
Ian Anderson
Lewisham Anti-Racist Action Group
February 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
@editor: “As for Doug Saunders’ remark, the opinion of the Ontario attorney general surely trumps that of a newspaper columist.”
Perhaps so. It is very complex the Ontario attorney general’s review and recommendations and caveats regarding structures that need to be in place are very specific. What remains unknown to me is to what extent it was possible to put in place all that was recommended.
But what about Doug Saunders’ point that ‘the father always gets custody’. Is that true?
February 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Thank you to Ian Anderson. I am fascinated to hear your account of Dr Williams’ speech. I have not seen any such report anywhere the newspapers. How appalling to see how completely the Archbishop’s words were taken out of context. In fact from a cursory reading of the papers (which is what most people do), I assumed Dr Williams was commenting on the marriage arranged by telephone with the man with learning difficulties (which I did not think the most positive example of Sharia law). Was it the media that conflated the two (Williams’ comments and that particular arranged marriage)? Three cheers for Media Workers Against the War.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:56 am
[…] Media Workers Against the War […]
February 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The best response to the Williams controversy, in my view, has come from a highly respected leader in the field of civil rights and violence against women, Pragna Patel, writing in the Guardian CiF. She is a founding member of Southall Black Sisters and has been a social worker since the 1980s. As she calls it: “The Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments have opened the closet on those most let down by faith community justice - women”. “…Over some 30 years, we have never known of women resorting to the civil law for divorce, injunctions and custody of children without first having exhausted internal methods of resolution through community and religious structures. It is only when they are failed at every turn that they seek justice from the wider legal system. Most when listened to, are encouraged to return to abusive families, having first been castigated for being disloyal to their religion and culture.”
More of what Pragna has to say can be found here:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/pragna_patel/2008/02/failed_by_religious_law.html
February 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I enclose a letter I sent to the Press complaint commission re the Bishop.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Sir / Madam,
I want to complain about a headline of the Sun newspaper I saw on Saturday, 9th February 2008.
The headline of the print edition read “Bash the Bishop”.
I regard this as a call of a newspaper to its readers to use violence against a leader of a Christian Church.
This is utterly unacceptable.
In a democracy it must be possible for a person to raise difficult and controversial issues without facing the threat of, or the direct use of, violence by people who disagree with that person.
No newspaper should use its headlines to call for the use of violence against such person.
The sun headline clearly advocated the use of violence against a Bishop.
Can you please investigate.
etc ect
February 15th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Glad to see in point 5 ‘mundane’ modified to ‘civil’. Big shot ‘feminists’ have been rolled out against the archbish/Muslim community on sharia domestic law grounds, eg male ‘divorce by text’ in Malaysia, and many women journalists like myself don’t find anybody’s domestic laws mundane. Nor will many of either sex find inheritance law mundane, what with the inheritance tax threshold controversy and most journalists being of the property owning middle classes. Furthermore, women’s property rights are a global issue.
Should MWaW give the impression that we’re avoiding these issues or white washing sharia? Point 4 about Muslim community and penalties not contravening UK law goes some way towards laying the idea of stoning for adultery etc, important not least because centre piece in movie Kite Flyer, Hollywood’s white wash of US crimes in Afghanistan (but not writer’s). How would civil courts in the Muslim community not be a parallel system? Any research on UK Muslim women’s attitudes?
February 19th, 2008 at 1:30 am
@Judith Amanthis: “How would civil courts in the Muslim community not be a parallel system? Any research on UK Muslim women’s attitudes?”
******************************
Ayesha Khan, documentary filmmaker who worked on ‘Divorce, Sharia Style’, shown on Channel 4 a few weeks ago, wrote the following article, ‘Sharia Sensibilities’ for Commentisfree:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/11/sharia.religion
(to which the best and final post read:
“@Armaros
February 11, 2008 11:03 PM
“Protecting the rights of women who need help must include respect for their religious practices”
This is a Veiled way of saying, you want to have it both ways.
Nobody is saying that Sharia traditions should be banned, just that Sharia law legally binding in the West should not occur and has no place. People are allowed to live freely and practice whatever faith or ritual they please. When it comes to law, civil and criminal, there should only be one law for one land otherwise we would end up with a system like Malaysia where different groups are subjected to different laws and the state becoming often entangled in deciding who is and isn’t a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. That is the natural outcome of such schizophrenic approaches to justice. The state will be forced to enter into matters of faith and that is where the gates of hell will open.
That is what the opposition to the Loony Druid s speech is about also.
It isn’t about weather Muslims want to marry or divorce in an Islamic way, what should matter in terms of divorce and division of assets would be the guarantee that nobody receives unequal treatment under the Law. The Archbishop might find that less socially cohesive, but justice and equality under the law render such idealistic cohesion into bullocks. What “cohesion” are we talking about when people are subjected to different legal traditions under the same state? It is lunacy and that is why the outcry is so loud.”)
February 21st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
“Criticism of Islam segues effortlessly with prejudice against black immigrants.”
So in other words any criticism of Islam is racist?
Does that mean even criticising anything that a Muslim says is racist?
When Sir Iqbal Sacraine made his comments about homosexuality I criticised his views not because of his faith but because of what he said. But does this still make me a racist?
Should Christianity and Jewdaism be permitted for criticism but Islam not?
February 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Interesting articles by Dave Crouch on the senstive way in which the Bolsheviks treated muslims in Soveit Central Asia (1917-23) before the development of Stalinism):
http://www.marxists.de/religion/crouch/bolshislam.html
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr280/crouch.htm
Extract:
“Sharia law had been a central demand of Muslims during the February Revolution of 1917 and, as the civil war drew to a close in 1920-1921, a parallel court system was created in Central Asia and the Caucasus, with Islamic courts administering justice in accordance with sharia law side by side with Soviet legal institutions. The aim was for people to have a choice between religious and revolutionary justice. A Sharia Commission was established in the Soviet Commissariat of Justice to oversee the system. In 1921 a series of commissions were attached to regional units of the Soviet administration with the purpose of adapting the Russian legal code to the conditions of Central Asia, allowing for compromise between the two systems on questions such as under-age marriage and polygamy.
Some sharia sentences, such as stoning or cutting hands off, were outlawed. Decisions of the sharia courts that concerned these matters had to be confirmed by higher organs of justice. Some sharia courts flouted the Soviet law, refusing to award divorces upon the petition of a wife, or equating the testimony of two women to that of one man. So in December 1922 a decree introduced retrials in Soviet courts if requested by one of the parties. All the same, 30 to 50 percent of court cases were resolved by sharia courts, and in Chechnya the figure was as high as 80 percent. Moreover, the influence was not all one way: there were instances in which Soviet officials were swayed by sharia law, convicting men for drinking alcohol or entering a house with an unveiled woman. [27]
A parallel education system was also established. In 1922 rights to certain waqf (Islamic) properties were restored to Muslim administration, with the proviso that they be used for education. As a result, the system of madressahs – religious schools – was extensive. In 1925 there were 1,500 madrassas with 45,000 students in the Caucasus state of Dagestan, as opposed to just 183 state schools. By November 1921 there were more than 1,000 soviet schools in Central Asia, but the 85,000 pupils were a modest number compared with the potential enrolment figure. [28]
The effect of Bolshevik policies was to split the Islamic movement between right and left. Historians appear to agree that a majority of Muslim leaders expressed conditional support for the workers’ state, convinced that there was a greater chance of religious liberty under Soviet power. [29] The Bolsheviks were therefore able to conclude alliances with the Kazakh pan-Islamic group the Ush-Zhuz (which joined the Communist Party in 1920), the Persian pan-Islamist guerillas in the Jengelis, and the Vaisites, a mystic Sufi brotherhood. In Dagestan, Soviet power was established largely thanks to the partisans of the Muslim leader Ali-Hadji Akushinskii. In Chechnya the Bolsheviks won over Ali Mataev, the head of a powerful Sufi order, who led the Chechen Revolutionary Committee. [30]”
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 am
This is an excellent article and I think it sets the record straight on a number of issues -
1) The statements made by Archbishop Rowan were taken completely out of context. What he said was this - if Muslims want to practice Sharia law for private issues they should be allowed to do so, but NOT as a substitute for British law, which in any case is supreme.
2) The Archbishop mentioned that any introduction of some of the more extreme Sharia associated laws - such as stoning - should not be considered. Nothing controversial about that.
3) He has a right to express his views as a citizen, something that people who defend the right to offend and blaspheme conveniently ignore.
4) Most Muslim organizations in the UK and elsewhere do NOT support Sharia law - in any case it is next to impossible to see how the rights and views of a minority within a minority can be imposed on society as a whole.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 am
5) Most of the condemnation and personal attacks against the Archbishop were, ironically, or perhaps not ironically at all directed by right wing sections of British society even though the Archbishop is the spiritual leader of Anglicans worldwide. By contrast, mainstream Islamic organizations in the UK respectfully distanced themselves from his message, irrespective of whether they agreed or disagreed with the factuality of his statement. This directly contradicts the theory of the so called “clash of civilizations'’ - if a Christian spiritual leader can be attacked by his own flock while another faith chooses to respectfully disagree, then it does more to undermine the notion that immigrants ( read Muslims ) do not respect the right to freedom of expression.