Sharia courts: What should our response be?
Recently it has been reported that Sharia courts have been active in the UK on civil matters. We put some questions to Gina Khan, an outspoken critic of Islamist politics, and Paul Sikander, a British Muslim Lawyer. Their answers, which they both contributed to, are set out below.
What is the drive behind these courts?
This is the culmination of decades of activism and ideological conditioning by Islamic institutions to incorporate the principles of separate laws for Muslims in the context of British society. More generally, it is a male led movement, disguising itself under the rhetoric of equal rights and superficial notions of ‘multiculturalism’, to embed reactionary religious laws in our society, and beyond that, to increase the influence and power of Islamic values interpreted by male clerics over the lives of Muslims in Britain. Even the acceptance of the most innocuous forms of arbitration is a big stick in their hands, as they can then act out control and judgment with the sanction of the state, and can use that to intimidate or bully opponents of sharia in the Muslim community into silence, as well as Muslim women or men who do not want to be governed by this system of religious law, but are unable to deny its influence over them when it is used as a tool of arbitration with the tacit acceptance of the supposedly secular state. It is also a starting point to the long term attempts to increase the range and influence of sharia in Britain even further.
How the courts are viewed by the Muslim community? How are they viewed by Women?
Most Muslims go about their daily life without thinking about such things, because their most pressing concerns are to feed their families. Amongst conservatives there is support for the idea of basic sharia arbitration, especially when the denial of them is erroneously generalized by activists like Bunglawala as discrimination against Muslims. On the other hand, all sentient non-Islamist Muslim women are horrified by the long-term consequences of ceding power to sharia-ist men. We need to acknowledge that most Islamists are attempting to Islamize Britain and we need to acknowledge that that Sharia law is being used to discredit democracy. It is apparent that Sharia law is different in many Muslim countries and very complex. The question we must ask is how will Sharia judges be operating? There are serious ideological issues to consider as well as legal. Remember Anjem Chowdery (of al-Mujhajiroun) and Omar Bakri; who both claimed to be judges of UK Sharia law. This is the impact of Islamist propaganda. Right now it’s not the BNP I fear or militant Jihadists, but the ’soft’ Jihadism creeping into almost every area of our lives at grassroot level. Mr Bunglawala from the MCB seems to have an issue with the Jewish arbitration system (Beth Din), but they do not impose or contravene with British laws and rights. Above all it is not Judaism that is in crisis, in conflict with democracies, or a threat to Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Islam has been brought to a crisis, and the Sharia law legal system is a major issue that cannot be resolved. It is ongoing and problematic.
What do I think government policy should be?
A brilliant Barrister who has written to Muslim newspapers about Muslim marriages, Neil Addison, has already shown how Muslim practice is out of step with every other religious community in Britain, including the other main minority religious communities, in refusing to submit marriage ceremonies to British law. This leaves Muslim women and men beleaguered when marriages go wrong and they do not have the same legal rights as all non-Muslims have in a similar situation, all because many parts of the Muslim establishment in Britain refuse to accept the privileging of secular British law over sharia. The British government must openly declare a long-term aim of harmonizing the Muslim community with mainstream British society, and the first step to doing this is to will into action at every level of administration in our country the intent to empower Muslim individuals by denying any religiously inspired legal sanction against them. For the long-term emancipation of British Muslims, and for the long term harmony of British society, there must be no legal barriers to hinder national integration between groups in our society. Anything that increases the power of Imams and Mullahs over Muslim women and men, and embeds their judgment and power, must be denied.
The government must also be wary of ’sharia creep’, where sharia is accepted tacitly. An example of this is the decision to allow the wives of a polygamous Muslim man to receive welfare benefits as a spouse. In the long term, the government is going to have to tackle issues like polygamy/bigamy in the Muslim community, which is perpetuated by the reluctance of the Islamic establishment in Britain to submit their marriage laws to secular British law. In fact, they need to start listening to Britsh Muslim women like Shaista Gohar, Diane Nammi and ex-muslim women Ayaa Hirsi Ali and Maryam Nawaazi..who all strongly oppose Sharia law. Plus how are these courts going to be monitored and how can measures be taken to stop discrimination of women in these kangaroo courts when Islamists make no scope for any kind of progress to create change within their interpretations of Sharia law, in regards to family law and the rights of Muslim women. To us Sharia law is medieval.
Is a failure to recognise Sharia courts de facto anti-Muslim?
No. To suggest that it is anti-Muslim is a cheap rhetorical trick employed by Islamists to mask their real agenda of special privileges and social control, and to paint Muslim opponents of sharia as being in some way traitorous or complicit in mainstream society’s discrimination against Islam. The fact remains that many British Muslim women and Pakistani Muslim women oppose Sharia law as it discriminates against them as women; wives, mothers and daughters particularly in cases of domestic violence, divorce, inheritance and rape/sexual abuse.
Progressive arguments against Sharia law?
All arguments against sharia are progressive. Sharia law is a reactionary system of social control, advocated by people with an agenda to impose their religious codes on the Muslim community in Britain, and to make non-Muslims abide by their worldview and interpretations of how Muslims should have their lives regulated. This is a long term agenda, it is something that all progressive people should be aware of, and it is something that thoughtful politicians should build a consensus on across parties, so that in the long term, whether the government is headed by the Conservatives or Labour, there can be unity of purpose and intent on this issue. Ultimately nothing can compare to secular laws of equality and fairness for all.
Comments
| 24 September 2008, 12:00 am |
please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.
| 24 September 2008, 12:07 am |
This is a long term agenda, it is something that all progressive people should be aware of, and it is something that thoughtful politicians should build a consensus on across parties, so that in the long term, whether the government is headed by the Conservatives or Labour, there can be unity of purpose and intent on this issue.
It’s hard to see a scenario where the Left would pass on the opportunity to denounce their opponents as racists.
| 24 September 2008, 12:34 am |
Moslem women should have the same rights as all other British women. It should not be possible for Moslem self annointed leaders to subject them to some form of sharia “arbitration court” which renders them subject to a repressive set of religious laws, which may conflict with the principles of civil and criminal law.
I have no doubt the male proponents of this will screech religious or racial discrimination if crossed.
Is there a Moslem MP, or a female MP, (I think the opposition would be most persuasive coming from either of these groups) who is prepared to take up the cause of Moslem women over this?
Indeed where is committed feminist Harriet Harman?
Mrs Ben
| 24 September 2008, 12:48 am |
please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.
The “usual suspects” have been making some of the same arguments that are made in the post above, modernity.
| 24 September 2008, 12:52 am |
Best article I’ve read to date on the subject.
Very helpful and clear.
| 24 September 2008, 12:58 am |
While I sympathise with the point of view set out by the authors, I find it difficult to take on board this assertion:
” all sentient non-Islamist Muslim women are horrified by the long-term consequences of ceding power to sharia-ist men. ”
If that is the case, the ladies have kept remarkably quiet about it. Polls are showing that among the young, the support for sharia is high, and increasing rapidly.
What they say they want, is not the point.
It’s what they are prepared to publicly stand up for, that counts.
I’m not going to the barricades for them. They will have to shift for themselves.
| 24 September 2008, 1:05 am |
Mesquito - you are being unfair. These views are the very basis of left progressive politics in this country. You only have to look over the HP archives to see that there are many forces within govt that are trying to promote the right view. Look at the way the govt withdrew from the Islam Expo. A positive moment for the Labour Party. There are plenty of forces in the party who take exactly this view, and it is a great shame that we are to lose office at the point when this trend is coming to a culmination.
It is quite wrong, as so many here seek to do, it seems, in their hysterical and ultra-right manner, to paste the Labour Party with the tag of pro-Islamism. Anyone who seeks to do this fails quite graphically and fundamentally to understand what progressive politics, and what Labour politics, is about.
But that is perhaps to be expected. The people who take this view have nothing to say about wider aspects of social concern, so why should they understand the desire to liberate people from this as well as other sources of inequality? It is a never-ending source of irony that a blog which seeks to promote precisely this sort of centre-left thinking - and *is* this sort of centre-left thinking - is constantly inundated by right wing buffoons.
A great shame. They do the cause they proffess to support no good at all.
| 24 September 2008, 1:05 am |
Insane. You get a bunch of Muslim haters with Muslim names (and suggesting ex-Muslims be taken as guides!) to be your Uncle Toms and skew the debate. Who exactly do these non entities, Gina Khan and Paul Sikander (how many Muslims do you know called Paul) represent?
You use of the catch all term “Islamist” is absurd- these courts have nothing to do with politics . Is marriage and divorce a political act? If so why are Judaicist Beth Din courts allowed to function
This is simply a function of one extreme section of the Jewish community which HP is a part of- to deny British Muslims the same rights that British Jews have
| 24 September 2008, 1:06 am |
Thank you for this article. It shimes with much that I hav ebeen saying on creeping Sharia.
I hope you have all gone and signed the Downing Street petition against Sharia Law.
I never intended my blog, (which was set up to support Tony Blair and is now a kind of ongoing shrine to the man) to focus so much on this issue. But my time online had shown me that THIS is the most pressing issue of our time and must be tackled SOON. I have also realised that none of our main parties is even thinking about it, although I know they all know and worry about it.
Their fear of this is to do, imho, with watching the electoral arithmetic.
Shameful approach.
Multiculturalism may have worked for some (mainly Christian) immigrants a couple of decades ago when the Tories started the ball rolling, but it is clearly NOT working now. Blair attempted to raise the issue in the year or two before he left, with some input from Jack Straw. Since then - very little, except more concessions to Islamic groups.
WRONG decision.
Can’t imagine it will be too long before the Dhimmi Award is handed to the British Government - of whichever shade.
| 24 September 2008, 1:09 am |
“I’m not going to the barricades for them. They will have to shift for themselves.”
In as far as anyone is “going to the barricades”, which is not much, I believe that those of us in more fortunate positions with voices that can be heard should indeed “go to the barricades”. Those who believe that we have no duty of care for our fellow citizens need not trouble themselves, I suppose.
| 24 September 2008, 1:09 am |
“How the courts are viewed by the Muslim community? How are they viewed by Women?
“Most Muslims go about their daily life without thinking about such things, because their most pressing concerns are to feed their families.”
Hilarious - yeah roll up British Muslims worry about kids starving.
The proof of the pudding and all that - if Muslims are interested in sharia courts they will use them -if not they wont. Its like the mosque no one forces Muslims to go but they do
Mrs ben
“Moslem women should have the same rights as all other British women.”
You have so much ignorance/contempt that you cant even spell the name properly
Methinks the courts’ll be very popular and so youll have to think of other ways of stopping the free market
| 24 September 2008, 1:18 am |
Ben:
It is quite wrong, as so many here seek to do, it seems, in their hysterical and ultra-right manner, to paste the Labour Party with the tag of pro-Islamism. Anyone who seeks to do this fails quite graphically and fundamentally to understand what progressive politics, and what Labour politics, is about.
My point was that, when a Left party — especially one which is out of power — is given the chance to either a) stand up for it’s universalist values, or b) smear the opposition as racist for defending universalist values, it will almost always choose “b”.
| 24 September 2008, 1:19 am |
I have yet to hear the views of major politicians on this issue. Are they so self-absorbed by the problems of GB or the credit crunch that an issue that gets more intractable by the day, and will have very long term consequences is left to pass by default? The Cameroons have been very quiet, no doubt enjoying the shadenfreude of watching GB self destruct.
It could transpire that these retrograde courts cause a stronger reaction that will settle the matter in favour of progress, but it will require a reaction from within the Muslim community that we have never seen before. The law of unintended consequences is sometimes favourable, as for example the devolution policy of New Labour, which has come to bite it in the arse.
| 24 September 2008, 1:35 am |
“A brilliant Barrister who has written to Muslim newspapers about Muslim marriages, Neil Addison, has already shown how Muslim practice is out of step with every other religious community in Britain”
Mr Addison, like HP, seems a confused little bunny
In the link given he says Muslim marraige should be part of the law
I suggest that, before we start talking about using sharia courts as a form of mediation, the Government should ensure that all Muslim marriages are carried out in accordance with the Marriage Act. If women then wanted to use sharia arbitration, that would be their free choice, unlike the present situation, where they really have no choice at all.
Under section 75 of the Marriage Act, it is a criminal offence for anyone to solemnise a marriage that is not legal under the Act.
So imams and mosques are breaking the law by performing unlawful marriage ceremonies. Since Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and Catholics have happily accommodated religious marriage ceremonies to the requirements of British law, the failure of mosques to do the same seems completely unjustifiable.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/11/nosplit/dt1101.xml#head6
Yet here he calls his own ideas “creeping sharia”
talking of the liberal Muslim marraige contract
“The new contract, drafted by the Muslim Institute, launching at the City Circle, would provide women with written proof of their marriage under Islamic law.
But discrimination barrister Neil Addison says it would mean shariah law by the ‘back door.’
‘With government members approving it, it gives pseudo-legitimacy to Islamic marriage and to shariah by the back door, without giving any real reason why this contract is necessary and what’s wrong with civil marriage.”
http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/news/s/1061862_muslim_marriage_contract_revolutionary_for_uk_women
| 24 September 2008, 1:41 am |
“My point was that, when a Left party — especially one which is out of power — is given the chance to either a) stand up for it’s universalist values, or b) smear the opposition as racist for defending universalist values, it will almost always choose “b”.”
Re being out of power - we shall see quite soon in the UK, shan’t we? It is a concern I have too, and indeed formed a part of the comment I made above which I deleted. There are plenty of people who will try to keep the legacy of sense alive within the party, however. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t regard you as an example of this sort of high-octane insanity, but your comment acted as a very substantial hook.
| 24 September 2008, 1:43 am |
I wonder, by the way, why someone with the moniker “HPBNP” expects anyone to read, let alone reply to, his squawks.
| 24 September 2008, 1:58 am |
HPBNP
To be frank with you, if helping out Muslim women to avoid the sort of intellectual caliginosity and social oppression you represent means disbanding the Beth Dins of the world, I’ll be the first Jew to support their disbanding.
| 24 September 2008, 2:10 am |
how many Muslims do you know called Paul
What? So a real muslim couldn’t be called Paul?
Where in the Koran or Hadiths has this been decreed?
| 24 September 2008, 2:12 am |
I’d also support their disbanding: as a matter of principle.
I would regard disbandiing as a high priority if - instead of merely refusing to allow women to divorce their husbands - they also encouraged beaten wives to withdraw complaints to the police, or deprived women of equal inheritance rights.
| 24 September 2008, 2:29 am |
The question is asked:
Sharia courts: What should our response be?
Anything that increases the power of Imams and Mullahs over Muslim women and men, and embeds their judgment and power, must be denied.
Sounds good if you say it fast, but I don’t see how the “power of Imams and Mullahs over Muslim women and men” can be prevented without resorting to measures that liberal progressives would no doubt find extremely distasteful. And if what Monty says is true:
Polls are showing that among the young, the support for sharia is high, and increasing rapidly.
What the hell can you do about it? Is it possible to legislate against kooky religious beliefs without infringing on peoples rights?
| 24 September 2008, 2:54 am |
Modernity has got more than a little nerve hasn’t he/she.
Remember the banner!
You might not want to hear it - but in this case it is true. You face a determined enemy numbered in the millions working within a larger society numbered in the billions. These people want to kill you, quite literally, as long as you do not submit completely to their demands, and even if you do submit completely that is no guarantee of safety. In other words you face a Nazi-like threat. It is of that order.
It is pleasing to see a main post on this site which doesn’t trim too much on the issue of what are we going to do faced with this threat. Others before us willed into being a large Muslim minority in this country.
It is now for us to decide how we (and that “we” probably includes something like 30-50% of the Muslim population who hate being ruled by Shariah) respond.
There are some good ideas being brought out into the fresh air here.
Meanwhile by way of demonstrating just how forceful the pro-Shariah campaign is, have a read of this utter nonsense from the Beeb:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7631388.stm
Essentially the article contradicts the promise of the headline and offers no real link whatsoever between English common law and Shariah. But that’s not going to stop them spinning this for all its worth as part of the general softening up process that’s being conducted by estbalishment worthies: Archbishop, Lord Chancellor and now the BBC - traitors all.
Anyone who has studied anything about the history of our common law knows it has Saxon roots, then overlaid with French feudalism.
| 24 September 2008, 3:03 am |
And another thing Modernity…
We in the Anti-Shariah camp don’t need to have a unified world view, all we need to be agreed on is that we are determined to stop Shariah in its tracks: that’s what unites us Catholics, Unitarians, Feminists, Anglicans, Gays, Lesbians, Pagans, Hindus, Transexuals, Polytheists, Atheists, Secularists, Israelis, Deists, Spaniards, Dancers, Democrats, Jews, Musicians, Artists, Social Drinkers, Scientists, Borrowers and Lenders, Sports Fans…We all know that Shariah wants to eliminate us, our beliefs and our activities.
Well sorry, Mad Muslims, we have no intention of laying down and allowing Shariah “Law” to trample all over our rights.
| 24 September 2008, 3:40 am |
“The proof of the pudding and all that - if Muslims are interested in sharia courts they will use them -if not they wont. Its like the mosque no one forces Muslims to go but they do”
Are you seriously suggesting that, even in rare instances, there is no risk of a muslim women being coerced into using a court where she will not be treated as being equal to a muslim man ?
| 24 September 2008, 4:11 am |
who is this HPBNP, and what does his acronym stand for?
Incidently mate “moslem” is an accepted (if uncommon) spelling, whereas “wont” as in “The proof of the pudding and all that - if Muslims are interested in sharia courts they will use them -if not they wont.” is a poor replacement for “won’t”………people in glass houses blah blah
| 24 September 2008, 4:48 am |
Oniad To be frank with you, if helping out Muslim women to avoid the sort of intellectual caliginosity and social oppression you represent means disbanding the Beth Dins of the world, I’ll be the first Jew to support their disbanding.
I want to be the second.
Boogski What the hell can you do about it? Is it possible to legislate against kooky religious beliefs without infringing on peoples rights?
Perhaps a free one way ticket to a Sharia state of their choice while leaving their passport behind. That seems very liberal.
| 24 September 2008, 4:51 am |
The most dutiful word I ever heard
The most dutiful sound in the world in a single word
Sharia
They just passed a law called Sharia
And suddenly that word
has got everyone stirred
Sharia
I just broke a law called Sharia
And suddenly I found
my head was on the ground
Sharia
The most frightening word
I ever heard
Sharia
| 24 September 2008, 5:01 am |
who is this HPBNP, and what does his acronym stand for?
It’s a new bank.
| 24 September 2008, 5:39 am |
Field@3:03am
I don’t how you feel about my views, but your last several posts on a variety of subjects makes me wonder if we are not long lost blood brothers–philosophically speaking.
| 24 September 2008, 5:43 am |
Sorry to have sullied your reputation Field–I should have thought before I hit the send bar. Besides, there’s always tomorrow, another topic, and time for us to to violently disagree and thus regain your luster.
| 24 September 2008, 5:45 am |
David T said:
I’d also support their disbanding: as a matter of principle.
Then it doesn’t make sense that you would:
- tolerate wholly private religious courts, only to the extent that they do not undermine equality between the sexes
I think the only sensible and fair thing to do would be to disband ALL religious courts. Now who’s with me?
| 24 September 2008, 5:45 am |
PPS: I am old and beyond redemption, but there’s still time for you
to flee from my philosophical embrace.
| 24 September 2008, 5:47 am |
Hey, Boogski, pick me! Pick me!
| 24 September 2008, 5:58 am |
David T
“I’d also support their disbanding: as a matter of principle.”
That would be your Muslim hating principles
“I would regard disbandiing as a high priority if - instead of merely refusing to allow women to divorce their husbands - they also encouraged beaten wives to withdraw complaints to the police, or deprived women of equal inheritance rights.”
Funny you dont do the same for the Agunot. It is impossible to control non-legally binding agreements reached by individuals in private.
————————————————–
field
“We in the Anti-Shariah camp don’t need to have a unified world view, all we need to be agreed on is that we are determined to stop Shariah in its tracks: that’s what unites us Catholics, Unitarians, Feminists, Anglicans, Gays, Lesbians, Pagans, Hindus, Transexuals, Polytheists, Atheists, Secularists, Israelis, Deists, Spaniards, Dancers, Democrats, Jews, Musicians, Artists, Social Drinkers, Scientists, Borrowers and Lenders, Sports Fans…We all know that Shariah wants to eliminate us, our beliefs and our activities.
Well sorry, Mad Muslims, we have no intention of laying down and allowing Shariah “Law” to trample all over our rights.”
You forgot Serbian rapists and Hinduvata fascists. How could you be so forgetful? And for someone who believes Sharia in voluntary courts, is going to trample of their rights or become law for non-Muslims in the UK, to be calling others mad is pretty comical
Apparently Muslims are “mad” for having their own arbitartion systems without British law. That would mean you are calling Jews whove had such a system for decades mad as well. Isnt that anti-semitic?
==================
Mike
“who is this HPBNP, and what does his acronym stand for?
It’s a new bank.”
Yep a bank that likes to say “yes” to hatred of Muslims
——————————————-
Sandra Iqbal
“What? So a real muslim couldn’t be called Paul?
“Where in the Koran or Hadiths has this been decreed?”
You right. A Muslim would be named after the man considered by Islam to have destroyed the montheistic message of Jesus and introduced the paganism of the trinity.
Maybe a Jew could be named Baal
—————–
pete woodhouse
“Incidently mate “moslem” is an accepted (if uncommon) spelling, ”
No it isnt. Its consider offensive by and isnt accepted by Muslims.
———————————————————-
claphammer
“Oniad To be frank with you, if helping out Muslim women to avoid the sort of intellectual caliginosity and social oppression you represent means disbanding the Beth Dins of the world, I’ll be the first Jew to support their disbanding.
I want to be the second.”
Its bizarre that you never called for the disbanding of the Beth Din, those dens of misoygny and putrid intellectual and social opression, which institutionally discriminates against Jewish women but now call for it in defence of Muslim women. Seems your hatred of Muslims is greater even that your hatred of Jewish women!
“Boogski What the hell can you do about it? Is it possible to legislate against kooky religious beliefs without infringing on peoples rights?”
“Perhaps a free one way ticket to a Sharia state of their choice while leaving their passport behind. That seems very liberal.”
Gee I wonder how a Jewish person would feel if a law was passed that any Jew who uses Beth Din court is stripped of his British passport and expelled from the UK? Would you call that liberal
| 24 September 2008, 6:07 am |
Hey, Boogski, pick me! Pick me!
You kidding? You’re my hero, homey! :D
| 24 September 2008, 6:13 am |
Just to say the fact you chose Gina Khan is a sign of desperation. She has had a tough life but has decided to retaliate against the whole Muslim community. She is clearly not mentally stable/ not all there. Anyone who reads her interview here can see that:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article1354063.ece
Its scare mongering of the highest order
She also wants to ban the veil. She just a Muslim hater picked up by the zionist media to push for curtailing of Muslim civil liberties.
| 24 September 2008, 6:22 am |
“Above all it is not Judaism that is in crisis, in conflict with democracies, or a threat to Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide. Islam has been brought to a crisis, and the Sharia law legal system is a major issue that cannot be resolved. It is ongoing and problematic.”
Ah what is the solution to “the Muslim problem”
This just regurgitatates the far right notion that Islam is a threat to the West and democracy, to argue for unequal and discriminatory treatment of Muslims vis a vis other communities (in this case the Jews). It pretty much states that Muslims cant have these rights because the West is at war with Islam, (while of course deriding any such claims from Muslims).
HPBNP Nazi garbage.
| 24 September 2008, 6:31 am |
HPBNP,
Tell it to Joe.
Joe Mamma! :D
| 24 September 2008, 6:39 am |
She also wants to ban the veil. She just a Muslim hater picked up by the zionist media to push for curtailing of Muslim civil liberties.
Interesting.
What are Muslim civil liberties HPBNP?????
| 24 September 2008, 6:42 am |
Its bizarre that you never called for the disbanding of the Beth Din, those dens of misoygny and putrid intellectual and social opression, which institutionally discriminates against Jewish women but now call for it in defence of Muslim women. Seems your hatred of Muslims is greater even that your hatred of Jewish women!
I’m glad you see it that way HPBNP.
Do you see it that way for Sharia courts too?
| 24 September 2008, 7:03 am |
One thing’s for sure. The CiF deflector shields have failed.
Intruder alert! :D
| 24 September 2008, 7:42 am |
I have no problems with the existence of Sharia Courts in the UK. I can hardly be said to be an appeaser of Muslims. I think they need to operate within the confines of British law - so they should not be performing or recognising illegal marriages, nor covering up crimes contrary to British laws.
But I don’t see why two people should not choose to settle their differences as they see fit with an adjudicator of their own choice.
Now maybe Muslimas are being pressured into accepting such Courts, but that is their problem. They need to find some spine.
And above all, it has the advantage of allowing Muslims, and especially Muslimas, to see precisely what Sharia is. Muslimas can bleat about how Muhammed supported women’s rights because they have no experience. It is all theoretically. But once Courts start issuing verdicts, they will see for themselves - and choose.
| 24 September 2008, 7:49 am |
“But sarge, we already did shariah courts last week! How about teaching us how to spot a terrorist at the airport using a mirror, pair of tweezers and a mango seed”
(with deference to Python)
| 24 September 2008, 7:57 am |
Good article. Summary:- “Shariah Courts are a political lever for Islamists who ultimately want to create a Muslim track in society rather than an integrated track. Shariah Law is male dominated and might seem to be unfavourable to women. Bunglawala is on the bandwagon because he can also have a pop at Jews and the Beth Din. Resisting Shariah Law is seen as an anti-Muslim thing that the Islamists use to prove that we are anti-Islamist.
Do I get the Gold/Yellow Star?
The argument about Beth Din was thrashed out last week. I expect field to now wade in. Beth Din has been in UK for 100 years and the fabric of UK society didn’t collapse or feel there was a separate law system that divided the nation or which prevented the seamless integration of Jews into UK society.
| 24 September 2008, 8:55 am |
Nope. Beth Din must go. Just who the fuck do you think you are?
| 24 September 2008, 9:10 am |
“You have so much ignorance/contempt that you cant even spell the name properly”
HPBNP is so fucking ignorant he doesn’t realise that “Moslem” is just as correct a spelling as “Muslim”. In Iran and India “Muslim” pronounced “Moslem”, and the Brits no doubt brought back that spelling during their colonial stint in India. Do you know anything at all about Islam or Muslim culture, HPBNP? No, I didn’t fucking think you did.
As for the name “Paul”, since there are Muslims even today named “Chingiz”, despite the fact that Chingiz Khan and his followers did more damage to the Muslim world than any other person ever, what’s wrong with the name Paul? It’s a Greek/Latin name, taken over by a former Christian persecutor called Shaul: the latter wasn’t the first to use it nor the last.
You ignorant wanker. Get a basic education before criticise people here.
| 24 September 2008, 9:15 am |
There should be no court with any power operating outside the formal legal system. No self-appointed system of clergy should be allowed to make legally binding decisions on citizens’ lives. Their role should be limited to advising the faithful on religious requirements, which the faithful can accept or dismiss.
I don’t know much about Beth Din, but if it has the powers to make legally binding decisions then these must be stripped, regardless of the fact that the Jewish community has posed no problems to society. This is not a security issue, it is about the principle of having a single legal system that is ultimately accountable to the people and it is also about equality before the law.
If Jewish, Christian or Muslim scholars want to state their attitude towards abortion, personal finance, homosexuality, marriage, etc, then they should be able to do so, but these views should not be binding on Jews, Christians or Muslims and everyone has a right to criticise them.
| 24 September 2008, 9:22 am |
What Dan said. The foolishness needs to stop.
| 24 September 2008, 9:23 am |
“Apparently Muslims are “mad” for having their own arbitartion systems without British law. That would mean you are calling Jews whove had such a system for decades mad as well. Isnt that anti-semitic?”
HPBNP apparently belongs to the Ahmadnejhad school of social sciences and irrational hatred: should anyone criticises Islam, let’s go for the Jews!
What sets HPBNP apart from Ahmadnejhad, however, is his apparent wildcard… If anyone thinks I’m being anti-semitic, I’ll just tell them I’m a Jew… just like that neo-Nazi with the fake name “Israel Shamir”.
| 24 September 2008, 9:23 am |
The UK could establish a royal commission of enquiry with leading legal experts, constitutional experts, academics, human rights experts and theologians. The commission should be set a well defined mandate of determining whether sharia law is compatible with the Common Law of this country, with european law and with our international obligations under various treaties, especially the core covenants of the UN system.
If the commission determines that elements of sharia are compatible with our laws, then we shoud accept that.
If, however, the commission determines that sharia is not compatible with UK legal norms then the government should firmly shut down any formal and informal sharia courts in the UK.
There will be outcry, there will be resistance, there may even be terrorism.
Personally, I judge that this will be preferable in the short term to the potential for a civil war in several decades time. And a state with two systems of law, two systems of values that are mutually incompatible could be heading for major civil unrest and even conflict.
| 24 September 2008, 9:29 am |
You right. A Muslim would be named after the man considered by Islam to have destroyed the montheistic message of Jesus and introduced the paganism of the trinity.
So could you perhaps just point out where in the Koran or Hadiths has the usage of the name by a Muslim been banned?
Or did you just make it up?
| 24 September 2008, 9:31 am |
And yes, the Beth Din should also be disbanded, and the Church of England should be disestablished.
There should be no institutional privileges and separate laws for any religion in this country; neither Islam, nor Judaism, and in a much changed UK, not even Christianity.
| 24 September 2008, 9:50 am |
I think it worth saying, incidentally, that some (although certainly not all) of the more objectional features of sharia were also present in the English legal system within the last 100 years.
The difference is that the common law and statute were generally not said to be divinely authored: and so were easier to amend. Which is not to say that sharia couldn’t develop: just that it wouldn’t do so in a transparent and democratic way.
That is one of the things that is problematic about it. (The others include (b) that a system of separate and unequal laws for certain citizens is unacceptable in a liberal democracy and (c) the fact that the greatest impetus for sharia courts comes from extremely radical Islamists, who see it as part of the struggle for separatism and the creation of a theocratic Caliphate.)
But, remember, it was only within the last 20 years that the courts decided that, as a matter of law, it was possible for a husband to rape his wife.
| 24 September 2008, 9:50 am |
See? You fuckers were Muslims and didn’t even know it. :D
| 24 September 2008, 10:01 am |
Suffolk Booy - “The UK could establish a royal commission of enquiry with leading legal experts, constitutional experts, academics, human rights experts and theologians. The commission should be set a well defined mandate of determining whether sharia law is compatible with the Common Law of this country, with european law and with our international obligations under various treaties, especially the core covenants of the UN system.”
Hmmm. I can ask my girlfriend nicely if she would mind nailing my testicles to a plank of wood. She might, for all I know, agree. Now such an act is usually illegal in the United Kingdom. Certainly the Common Law has a few things to say about assault. I am sure that European law and the UN’s conventions might have a few things to say about people who nail other people’s testicles to planks of wood.
But if I enjoy it and my girlfriend is willing to do it, why can’t I? Do we really need a Commission to investigate the practice? Wouldn’t it be better to say what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their business?
Now if that applies to testicles and nails (or bottoms and whips or whatever takes your fancy really) why doesn’t it apply to Sharia? You mean I can’t dress up as a Qadi and have my girlfriend flogged if she decides she is into that sort of thing?
| 24 September 2008, 10:06 am |
I really think there should be no concession to polygamy in the tax or benefits system but the problem is children. We will end up paying for their large families, even if we don’t directly pay for the extra spouses. Mr T, I know women only got the vote 100 years ago in Britain, but as far as I know, we have always been equal in law. The same goes for incomers into a country. The Somerset decision in the 17th century that ruled that no man can be enslaved on British soil (just don’t ask about the colonies!), and as far as I know, ‘honour’ killing has never been a British custom. Yes, men do kill women for reasons of sexual jealousy or control, but it has never been divinely sanctioned. It’s not happening in a vacuum is it though? If there is an Islamacist military coup in Pakistan, it will effect the mOslems in this country and strengthen the reactionaries. But, personally, I think the Islamic world is falling apart. They are sall so busy killing each other they haven’t got time for anything else. Whether MOslems in this country want to stand on the sidelines and cheer them on, that’s up to them, but at the end of the day they will find that is a dead–end, a destructive one at that. One has to believe that not all Moslems are that stupid, or maybe Harry’s Place=Nazi Party (to give him/her his full name). Interestingly, testament videos by bomb mules talk about mosque elders who are keener on decorating their semi-detached houses or complaining about East Enders or Home and Away.
| 24 September 2008, 10:08 am |
Per Judge Petiti in the ECHR case of Laskey Jaggard and Brown:
“The protection of private life means the protection of a person’s intimacy and dignity, not the protection of his baseness or the promotion of criminal immoralism.”
(My view: rubbish)
| 24 September 2008, 10:18 am |
To keep people like HPBNP happy, HP should run a semi-regular series entitled “Dem Krazy Jews!”, featuring stories such as this:
Yet Tzipi Livni, asked by Israel’s president on Monday to form a government following Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s resignation, remains largely faceless when it comes to her country’s powerful ultra-Orthodox Jews, or haredim.
Citing concerns for feminine modesty, the ultra-Orthodox refuse to publish images of women in their newspapers — a core source of information as the reclusive community generally shuns the television, Internet and most radio stations.
The wackiness could be emphasised by using the Comic Sans font.
P.
| 24 September 2008, 10:21 am |
please can I suggest, for a change, that there is a bit of strong moderation on this thread, before the usual suspects (JP, Morgoth, Field, Alcuin) just use it as an excuse to attack Muslims, in general and ride their pet hobby horses.
I don’t have to say any more than what the article said. What they said. With bells on. And your fake piousness is shameful, Modernity.
| 24 September 2008, 10:23 am |
I’ve just consulted my Ladybird Book of Legal History, and I believe the reason that one is not considered to have consented to assaults is that in the Middle Ages, one’s body/person was deemed to be the property of the King and was needed for wars against the French. The offenses of ‘maiming and mayhem’ were established in this period, as an injured man could not serve in an army. Anyway, the point about sharia is that it’s not just personal law, it’s about disposing of assets. I have noticed that one reads in the paper about marriages between very wealthy Moslim men who divorce their wives and leave them with no money at all and the women are forced to apply for benefit. Under Islamic law it is no doubt perfectly legal, but to my Euroepan eyes it is an abuse of the benefit system. I wonder why the women don’t go to British civil law to reach a settlement.
| 24 September 2008, 10:30 am |
@ So Much For Subtlety
I bet dinner parties at your place are unforgettable.
A Left that has to debate this is a sick Left indeed.