Harry’s Place

The One Law for All campaign against Sharia law in Britain is to be launched at the House of Lords on International Human Rights Day, December 10, 2008 from 4:00 to 5:00pm.

I assume MPs will have a dispensation to this ‘one law for all’ business?

Whilst sharing the concerns of many about Sharia courts I wouldn’t go so far as to want to ban all religious courts or arbitration systems. Why should the religous courts of the Jews and the Anglicans have to suffer because there are abuses (especially against women) in Sharia courts? These other non Muslim courts have successfully operated for centuries and have not had as bad a record as sharia courts.

Jewish Beit Din are voluntary and can be proved to be voluntary something that the Sharia courts cannot prove especially in family matters.

I would like to add that it is at least (to my knowledge) 350 - 400 years since a Beit Din in Europe sentenced a Jewish congregant to be confined to the stocks for a crime.

“I assume MPs will have a dispensation to this ‘one law for all’ business?”

I think that the consensus is that MPs should be able to bribe civil servants if that’s a customary part of their job.

I’ve no problem at all with informal arrangements, even in family law, provided that they do not have the force of law at all.

I cannot understand why Jews, Anglicans or Muslims need UK law to sanction their decisions.

To the extent that attempts are made - extra judicially - to enforce these informal tribunals’ judgements in a manner that constitutes a criminal offence, the ‘enforcers’ should be prosecuted.

The biggest problem with Sharia as the basis for arbitration - my arbitrating friends tell me - is that it is not a sufficiently definite body of law to allow participants to know what they’re signing up for.

I note that when the head of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal spoke at Temple Church, he devoted much of his time to arguing for polygamy. I think this illustrates why this initiative should be resisted, and reversed.

David T said:”I note that when the head of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal spoke at Temple Church, he devoted much of his time to arguing for polygamy. I think this illustrates why this initiative should be resisted, and reversed.”

Interesting point. I have no problem with POLYAMORY as there is much more equality in the relationships but I do have a problem with Polygamy as it does place too much power in the hands of men.

>I cannot understand why Jews, Anglicans or Muslims need UK law to sanction their decisions.

British law is based on Jewish and Christian law, it is anti-Muslim.

Should be clear enough.

How is British Law anti-Muslim? You mean, it doesn’t recognise (dis)honour killings or polygamy or cutting off thieves’ hands or slavery? Please elucidate

“other non muslim courts have operated for centuries and have not had as bad a record” I don’t think not having as bad a record is any form of recommendation.
In Britain the law is based historically on the principle of common law. It is a tried and tested method. It is as fair a sytem as you’re going to find at the present time, apart from some idyllic Polynesian Island paradise, in the real world.
There has to be one system of law for citizens otherwise the whole house of cards will become lopsided and will collapse. All are equal before the law. That’s why we have scales of justice. Dieu et Mon Droit. Honi soit qui Mal y Pense. There is no place in modern society for medieval religious bigotry masquerading as law of whatever creed.

British law is based on Jewish and Christian law, it is anti-Muslim.

If anti-Muslim refers to hard-won defenses against a capricious judicary, equal rights for all sexes and minorities and equal access under the law, then yes, sign me up.

Sharia courts are none of these things and are no more than a sham, created to perpetuate an Ottoman-like millet system, wherein Muslims (especially women and children) are second class citizens by virtue of their own backward-thinking religious leaders.

bard on the run said:”There is no place in modern society for medieval religious bigotry masquerading as law of whatever creed.”

My experiences with one particular Beit Din was as far from ‘medieval religious bigotry’ as you could possibly find.

I think people should be allowed to run their own religoius affairs in the UK and that includes where necessary arbitration panels etc. However where these panels or courts can be proved to contravene UK equality laws such as is blindingly obvious in the case of Shariah then those particular arbitration panels should not be allowed.

Besides that there always the option for parties before a Beit Din or the Beit Din themselves to refuse to take or continue with a case and refer the matter to the secular courts for non religious matters.

This will not work so long as huge swathes of the legal profession support incorporation of Shar’iah.

Only last week we had Stephen Hockman QC, former chair of the Bar council, arguing alongside Anjem Choudary for incorporation of Shari’iah

He is far from alone, as Lord Chief Justice Phillips demonstrated.

British law is based on Jewish and Christian law, it is anti-Muslim.

Which statutes do you have in mind to back up this nigh-on comedic assertion?

This campaign highlighted by old Maryam Namazie is very worthwhile of support. Let’s get behind it.

*falls off chair at constructive suggestion by Benji!*

*clocks strike 13*

I applaud your campaign. It is absolutely the right call and I will be in touch about cross-promoting between our campaigns.

Please don’t forget that Shariah Law already has ownership of certain financial products being offered by high street banks.

British tax law has already been amended to help facilitate Shariah Compliant Mortgages.

We are aiming to force the banks to demand concessions from the Shariah authorities they use.

Best of luck- you have a lot of highly credible support.

If people agree to have aspects of their lives regulated by Sharia isn’t that a matter for them? It’s no different to companies agreeing to arbitration rather than the common law being used in the settlement of contractual disputes. The main question is the genuineness of the consent.

Chris C- there should be 1 law for all.

If it is found wanting, it should be altered only by democratic consent.

That’s the system we live under.

falls off chair at constructive suggestion by Benji!*”

I assumed it was the spoof Benji.

If people agree to have aspects of their lives regulated by Sharia isn’t that a matter for them?

Sure, but not backed by legal sanction.

I support Maryam’s campaign with few reservations. Some of the individuals she cites are familiar to me on this side of the pond and have done some very brave work countering islamists.

However, I don’t think that religious ‘courts’ such as Beit Din should necessarily be abolished for the simple reason that they’ve never casued any harm and do not have, as their long term goal, the imposition of these same jewish tribunals on the entire country.

Sharia law, on the other hand, is not strictly religious in nature and should not be classed as religion, but rather placed in the categaory of politics, and then banned on that basis.

Sharia law initiatives are sinister and insidious attempts by waning Islamist whack-jobs, both clerical and ’secular’ to reintroduce and normalise medieval ( Bronze Age?) practices, morals and punishments that are no longer relevant to modernity, to humanity or to the future.

It is ‘jurisprudence’ for baboons.

Chris C said:”The main question is the genuineness of the consent.
”

This is what worries me about those whose cases will come before Shariah Courts.

There is a good relationship between the Jewish Beit Din and the civil courts and a healthy respect from the BD for the concept that ‘the law of the land is the law’, something that I don’t think that a significant minority of the UK Muslim community and clerics have proved to the satisfaction of the majority.

I have significant concerns about the attitudes of Sharia courts to women and minors.

We have never lived under a system of one law for all:

English/Welsh law is very different to Scots law

Local authorities have their own by-laws. I believe there are still bits of Wales that are more or less dry (a convincing reason for not wishing to visit those places)

The courts will uphold arbitration and mediation decisions that otherwise by-pass the usual court system.

There has long been recognition for Jewish courts without civilisation as we know it coming to an end.

So why the obsession with opposing Sharia?

John Meredith

It was not a spoof Benji. No supporter of Sharia law, me, let’s get that straight.

It looks like hanging around HP has finally worn off on you, Benji.

The credit should all go to David T really. His strategy of humouring Benji seems to be paying off.

My more condemnatory approach is much more fun, but it doesn’t produce the results.

Benji, is Maryam Namazie that old and why would her age be relevant?

Or is it to differentiate her from a New Maryam Namazie?

English/Welsh law is very different to Scots law

But not for different English/Welsh people.

“It was not a spoof Benji. No supporter of Sharia law, me, let’s get that straight.”

Bloody hell Benjamin (if it is the real Benjamin), that is a bit direct and wriggle-free, isn’t it? It is making me feel dizzy.

ChrisC said:”So why the obsession with opposing Sharia?”

I don’t feel that I personally have an obsession with opposing Shariah although I have severe doubts as to whether or not women and minors would get fair hearings from them.

Yes there are issues of sexism in other religious courts such as the women refused a Get or religious divorce by an Orthodox Jewish Beit Din but at least within Judaism women can say ’sod you’ and go to a different branch of Judaism if they are unsatisfied with Orthodoxy without worrying that they will be killed by some mentalist male relative. OK there will still be issues of not having the religious divorce but the Beit Din is voluntary. The history of women oppression in Islam and Islamic culture makes me very nervous and wary about putting Shariah courts on the same footing as Beit Din and the Church Courts.

‘I believe there are still bits of Wales that are more or less dry.’

The pubs used to be closed on Sundays in some parts of Wales, but this is a thing of the past. No need to worry!

Benji,

What is your view on the Jewish Courts in the UK?

The history of womens* oppression in Christian culture makes me very nervous and wary about putting Church courts on the same footing as Beit Din and the Shariah Courts.

*albeit witches

See how the game works Trundlemaster?

English/Welsh Law is based on Common Law. In Scotland it’s different. But it’s different for everybody. It’s not different for a few. The Welsh anti-drinking laws (now gone thank goodness) is an example of religious prejudice (in this case Methodist) creeping into ‘the law’. It should never have been allowed.

“The campaign also calls for the Arbitration Act 1996 to be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within [B]and outside[/B] of the legal system.”

Wow. While at a quick first reading I was in full agreement, the above quote brings into question the intelligence of the whole thing. You want to ban religious tribunals from operating even outside the legal system ? This means that a religious group could not hold a hearing to expel one of its own members.

I’m an atheist and a libertarian, and oppose any kind of special status of religions or religious opinions. I am therefore opposed to this campaign, which seems to seek special status for religious tribunals - by banning them in situations and circumstances when equivalent non-religious tribunals would be permitted.

Given that individuals should be free to contract as they choose, including selection of the forum and basis for arbitration, to single out religion for specific prohibition as a basis for such contracts or arbitration is as bad as to give it special standing. The way to address this is by creating a basis for appeal against arbitration (even binding arbitration) through conventional legal channels on the grounds of violation of equal protection principles, or coercion.

I do not believe that the use of religious tribunals for resolving (say) inheritance is sensible, but I do stongly assert the right of the devout to resolve disagreements between themselves. Even in the case of (say) child custody, where interests of a third party are material, if the parents voluntarily accept the “guidance” of a religious tribunal that should have equal weight to any other agreement between the parents.

What is your view on the Jewish Courts in the UK?

Don’t know much about them, or their status. I am generally a bit allergic to different laws based on religion. Geographical differences (e.g. Wales, England, Scotland, or local alterations) are more understandable.

It really depends on what “without” means.

I’d strongly support the criminalising of attempts to enforce on unwilling participants - either through law, or any form of illegitimate non-legal pressure - these sorts of ‘judgements’.

In fact, I suspect that in many cases, an attempt to do that would constitute a blackmail or assault type offence.

From a practical point of view, that is all that is needed.

Stu said:”The history of womens* oppression in Christian culture makes me very nervous and wary about putting Church courts on the same footing as Beit Din and the Shariah Courts.

*albeit witches

See how the game works Trundlemaster?”

If you were comparing like with like.

In the West most oppression of Christians died out long ago and Christians have in the main accepted to a large extent equality before the law.

Christian oppression of women is in the UK a historical thing whereas Muslim oppression of women is current and in the here and now.

If negative attitudes to women in Islam was something 1 - 2 or three hundred years in the past and if Progressive Islam was the mainstream type of Islam then I’d say you were comparing like with like but as these conditions do not apply then I’m afraid you are not making a valid comparison.

Don’t know much about them, or their status. I am generally a bit allergic to different laws based on religion. Geographical differences (e.g. Wales, England, Scotland, or local alterations) are more understandable.

Hear hear.

The difference between laws based on geography and those based on religion is that (at least in a democracy) geographical law is mutable by the needs and concerns of those governed based on an agreed-upon framework of law.

Religious law is only mutable by the whims and concerns of those doing the governing - based wholly on a convenient interpretation of an ancient storybook.

DavidT - “From a practical point of view, that is all that is needed.”

Yes indeed. But in your other comments you seem to be arguing that certain types of contract (or contract-like agreement) should be enforcible through law, but other types should not. (no need to dive into legal/moral/consideration - this is a matter of principle rather than law).

We demand an end to all Sharia courts and religious tribunals

I am opposed to this campaign as it calls for the end of all religious tribunals. This seems like a backdoor campaign to outlaw the well established batei din by lumping them together with the relatively unproven sharia tribunals. The passage in the piece about sharia law on divorce and custody is misleading as afaik this is not available under the current arrangements. For instance the business of the ‘get’ (religious divorce) in Jewish law is nothing to do with women being able to obtain a divorce in uk law; it is a separate question of religious marriage status. In fact it is easier for a woman to obtain a ‘get’ in Israel because the batei din there can apply dire sanctions against a recalcitrant husband such as imprisonment. But in the UK the Jewish marriage status, and I assume also moslem marriage status, is irrelevant to the marriage status in law.

I don’t see how ‘banning’ tribunals would remove the requirement for religious people to obtain the correct religious recognition of their status. Jewish women would still need to go to a rabbinic authority to obtain the required recognition of a divorce; otherwise children from any subsequent relationship would be deemed ‘mamserim’ with the appalling consequences that this entails.

The concern around these tribunals is that pressure can be applied to participants. For instance there have been cases where women are pressured to pay husbands for a ‘get’. However this would continue even if the tribunals were abolished; the ‘get’ would still be required from a beth din, even if none were available in this country.

The answer to the legitimate suspicion of these tribunals is to place them under proper scrutiny and to provide redress to those who come under unfair pressure from religious bodies.

certain types of contract (or contract-like agreement) should be enforcible through law, but other types should not

Do you mean marriage contracts, or agreements to deal with child custody, etc? I don’t think they’re particularly contract like.

Which statutes do you have in mind to back up this nigh-on comedic assertion?

“Thou shalt not Kill”

Compared to the Koran and Hadiths which describe many circumstances where a Muslim is allowed to kill an infidel.

The history of womens* oppression in Christian culture makes me very nervous and wary about putting Church courts on the same footing as Beit Din and the Shariah Courts.

Yes, I frett about the imminent danger of witches being burned at the stake in central London. It’s so relevant to 21st century life.

In Islam nun’s order aren’t allowed, and nor is celibacy. In early Islam a few women did attempt to imitate Christian practices, but were executed by sharia courts for doing so.

If in a culture/religion women aren’t free to remain single, if they are not free to remain childess, and if they cannot enter into free and voluntary associations with like-minded women…all basic rights…, then just what fucking freedoms do those women have?

And have you any idea of just how dynamic, prosperous and intellectually kick-ass many of Europe’s medieval nunneries were?

Men sometimes aren’t all they’re cocked up to be, and it’s an observation Christian women have been allowed to make, and one seconded, from what I can tell, by the Virgin Mary Herself.

Get thee to a nunnery John P.

One way to begin is to say it depends what you mean by law.

Many people voluntarily place themselves under rules of association. Some of these rules are not trivial to those concerned but do not apply to someone like, say myself, if I have not entered into the arrangement.

Sharia Law is so represented. It claimed that by accommodating or otherwise sanctioning Sharia courts, Moslems may find life is easier and they can compile with both the civil law (as they must) and then justify this in the Pauline sense of being at one with God. This is either to misunderstand, or, as I suspect, mislead.

There can be no compromise with this. What is intended is to introduce a parallel and contesting statue of law which will result, as would an extension of the law against blasphemy, in numerous and vexatious cases before the civil courts.

In all circumstances I can envisage it is better for the health of civil society for all to be bound under one statue law, i.e. in the UK by English Common Law or the Law of Scotland. This has served the people for many years. Despite imperfections it is also open to repeal and modification by Parliament as and when society changes. This claim cannot be made for Sharia Law and indeed, is seemingly one of its attractions for its proponents.

I welcome this initiative. Where do I sign?

“they can compile with both the civil law (as they must)” – me!

That should be ‘comply’. Sorry chaps! Don’t chop me head off, please!

What a great campaign - and it’s fantastic to see plenty of Muslim names associated with it, giving a voice to the many Muslims who know what Shariah means and don’t wish to be subjected to its rules.

Johann Hari supports it? There must be something wrong.

Another example of what happens when you get most if not all your facts from extreme right-wing U.S. radio and Fox is this incredibly dense and anti-historical dwelling on the sayings of the Quran and Hadith re: killing of infidels. The fact is, their holy books and Christian and Jewish holy books are full of this sort of thing, and until the last century, the Muslim world was no more bloodthirsty — in fact less so — than the Christian West. It’s POLITICS that have turned many Muslims into hard-line fundamentalists and some into terrorists: the holy books are mere justification. If they were all sweetness and light, other justifications would be found. Where was all the killing in the 14th-19th century?
To blame an entire religion with a 1,300 year history — much of it benign — for the evil actions of some of its fundamentalist adherents strikes me as intellectually dishonest and, well, incredibly stupid. Moderate muslims — and most are, otherwise, with 1.2 billion adherents, there would be terrorism in most countries on a minute-by-minute basis — are the first VICTIMS of this shift to extreme radical Wahabi/Salafism, as they are silenced by (reasonable) fear of reprisals.
As for the issue at hand, all religious courts should be voluntary, and non-binding. For example, a muslim woman who “signs up” for sharia courts should be able to say “stuff it,” and take her case to the real courts if she doesn’t like the sharia verdict. Same with Beth Dins, Church courts, or even secular tribunals. None should have force of law.

DavidT - “Do you mean marriage contracts….I don’t think they’re particularly contract like.”

It seems to me that any agreement between 2 parties intended to be enforceable is contract-like. Indeed, the ONLY difference I can see between marriage and cohabitation is the entering into standardized/formalized binding commitments.

j.r.

The problem with handling “the pressure that can be applied to participants” under Sharia law and courts by “placing them under proper scrutiny and provide redress” is that it is already obvious that PC attitudes have so invaded the police, the courts and the politics of G.B that these supposedly protective institutions would (as they indeed already have) bend over backwards to pour oil on troubled waters so as to not make waves in the Moslem community. Further, the granting of a form of legitimacy
to these Moslem institutions would/will only make it that much harder to muster arguments for the negating of their formal decisions and/or informal influence. What you propose is another good idea in theory that won’t work in the real world.

The fact is, their holy books and Christian and Jewish holy books are full of this sort of thing, and until the last century, the Muslim world was no more bloodthirsty — in fact less so — than the Christian West. It’s POLITICS that have turned many Muslims into hard-line fundamentalists and some into terrorists: the holy books are mere justification.

You’ve obviously never read, nor contrasted and compared Jewish, Christian and Muslim scripture.

You statement above is the product of an ignorance both abject and obscene.

Go do some homework and read about the exploits of ‘The Prophet’ and glean that info from a tome , a reliable tome published before the 1970s, before the whitewash you appear to have bought into even began.

What is your view on the Jewish Courts in the UK?

Is there a court that isn’t?

Include me in.

And vildechaye, you should read more widely - in this I agree with John P. You say,

“..It’s POLITICS that have turned many Muslims into hard-line fundamentalists and some into terrorists: the holy books are mere justification…”

There’s a school of thought which attributes the sort of rigid dichotomous thinking from which comes extremism in Islam to its holy books. True, the leaders are simply opportunists, but you seem not to have asked yourself why their people follow them so slavishly.

Can it be so easy for them to do because their holy books tell them that submission to their god and his representatives on earth who claim to speak with his authority (rather than thinking for themselves and exercising choice) and emulating their prophet’s behaviour is the only way for them to be?

I will be signing that petition as soon as it surfaces.

They can have any religious arbitration they want, but resulting judgements should not be legally binding on any dissenting party. And the family courts should always intervene to protect the interests of any juveniles who may be affected by such proceedings. So, for example, custody of children, or dispensation of the estate of those who die intestate, should only be settled in the manner of English Law.

I really wouldn’t care had Muhammad Abdul Bari not said that he would like us all to adopt more Muslim ways, and his mouthpiece Bungle not broadcast on Comment is Free that he wants a Caliphate here.

Oh yes, and I have a distinct aversion to Rowan Williams’ view of the world, too.

On a slightly related topic I would strongly recommend tonight’s This World programe on forced marriages in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_two_england/

I don’t think this campaign has a chance as it is currently formulated because the chief rabbi is too cosy with the labour establishment for something that attacks the beth din to get anywhere. I agree with virgil x that there is a major problem with scrutinising these tribunals. For example, a recent case was cited where a woman in an inheritance case was persuaded by the sharia tribunal to accept a lesser amount than she would probably have got in a normal court. But what can be done if the woman in question wants to take the lesser amount as an expression of her piety? How can we persuade people to drop religious precepts that are prejudicial to their natural interests?

re: abject and obscene: I would say that those adjectives would better describe the view that the Muslim world before, say, 1920 was more bloodthirsty than the Christian West. Why don’t YOU go back and read some history. As for our holy books, i continue to maintain that both are pretty bloodthirsty.

BTW, I’m no Islamist apologist, far from it. I just think that tarring an entire religion over 1,300 years old for the acts of a few over the last 50 years or so (and especially the last 20 years) is bigoted and stupid.

I support Western actions in Afghanistan and the U.S./British decision to topple Saddam Hussein. I believe that Islamist terrorism needs to be confronted vigorously and that the anti-semitism of the Left shouldn’t be overlooked. But that doesn’t give those right-wing extremists that frequent HP (not HP itself, mind you) the right to slag off a long-respected religion. I would call that abject and obscene.

RE:There’s a school of thought which attributes the sort of rigid dichotomous thinking from which comes extremism in Islam to its holy books. True, the leaders are simply opportunists, but you seem not to have asked yourself why their people follow them so slavishly.

You can agree with John Pee and his “school of thought” all you want, but the fact is that only a tiny proportion of Muslims “follow [extreme leaders] so slavishly”. Of course, with 1.2 billion inhabitants, even if 1% follow slavishly, that still leaves us with 12 million would-be terrorists. Fact is, the vast majority DONT follow slavishly. And your “analysis” completely avoids the issue of moderate muslims, who go to Mosque, run their businesses and want nothing more than a better life for their kids, yet still worship and follow the precepts of their holy books. The silent majority in other words. They deserve better than to be mushed together with their radical co-religionists, as you appear to do. By the way, I say all this as an agnostic who agrees with Hitchens and Dawkins on the banality of all religion. But the idea of blaming ISLAM the religion, which has spawned sufis, a more tolerant attitude to Jews and Christians in the middle ages than Christians certainly had, for the actions of some insane adherents over the past 30 years or so, is, as i keep insisting, just dumb and shows a profound lack of historical sense.

vildechaye,

I’ve said it here previously and elsewhere that “moderate” Moslems are moderate in the same way that American Catholics still consider themselves to be Catholics in good standing despite ignoring many of the basic precepts/teachings of the Church. It is not that the “extremist” jihadists have mis-interpreted the teachings of the Koran; on the contrary, they are reading it correctly. Rather, Muslims wanting only to lead a normal life, sensibly choose to ignore the more incendiary teachings of the book. But the point is, the words are still there, ready to be seized upon by anyone frightened by the penetration of Islamic lands and culture by Western Civilization
in all it’s modern materialistic and often lewd forms. It is not necessarily anything Western governments have “done” to the Moslem world–it it is that the very mere existence of a powerful and influential “other” is seen as a mortal threat in and of itself and a reproach to all that Islam stand for–and therefore everything “other” must be eliminated. It’s always like that with totalist systems.

“…requires an end to Sharia and all other faith-based courts and tribunals.”

There is a problem here, as others have noted. By supporting the abolition of any sort of shari’ah influenced ADR, we leave ourselves open to the charge of hypocrisy by allowing Jewish and Christian courts to continue unabated. I think it would be sufficient to argue that Biblical teachings have permeated the common law and suffused the legal minds of barristers and judges to the extent that when we talk about the Common Law, we actually mean the Judeo-Christian Common Law. The principle of allowing a Beit Din to continue should not present any problem, given that, and I’m fairly confident in my assumption, there is less social pressure to co-opt them or abide by their rulings.

Something that is missing from this discussion is our old ‘friend’ the Napoleonic Code. Supra-government at European Commission/ European Council level has a fundamental influence on our provincial government’s thinking with regards Shari’ah. The question of EU enlargement to include so-called Islamic countries like Turkey, with Morocco being another privileged candidate and the other Maghreb countries envisaged to join the EU within the next 15-20 years.

I also think there’s a misunderstanding here about two concepts: ‘equality before the law’ and ‘rule of law’. When she demands ‘equality’, what Maryam actually mean? Literal equality? If she means, as I’m sure she does, that there must be adequate protection of universal human rights, then I concur. If she means that there are no ‘natural’ inequalities then I would vigourously disagree: does a British citizen have the same rights as non-citizens? Criminals and the innocent? This needs some clarification.

The concept of equality before the law was something both the Archbishop of Canterbury discussed when they cause such a furore earlier in the year, but what everybody seemed to miss, particularly regards the Dr Williams’ speech is how his support for shari’ah was governed by a misguided belief in multiculturalism, something which pervades public life. To what extent are different perceptions of equality in different communities served by ‘one law for all’? Whose moral or ethical standards should frame the rule of law and due process?

I fully endorse the campaign to excise shari’ah, but would reject the abolition of battae deen or Anglican boards of arbitration.

j.r says:

I don’t think this campaign has a chance as it is currently formulated because the chief rabbi is too cosy with the labour establishment for something that attacks the beth din to get anywhere.

Oh, yeah, right. So Jews (or I should say one Jew) control the government. An interesting variant on the usual tropes. As it happens, although I understand Brown has said he admires Sacks, the CR in question, if you read Sacks’ books they’re much more oriented to Tory policies than Labour.

I don’t see why there shouldn’t be provision for Sharia on exactly and only the same basis as for Jewish law in our legal system. That is, the UK legal system recognises the legal force of marriages and other binding contracts voluntarily undertaken by those Muslims and Jews respectively who choose to do so. The UK legal provision for Jewish law for example strengthens the position of Jewish women in divorce cases where the original marriage was a Jewish religious one, since UK courts will not grant a “secular” divorce until the Beth Din grants a divorce. This prevents those Jewish men who want to deprive their observant wives of a divorce in Jewish law when they themselves would be quite happy to go off with a secular quickie divorce. It prevents them from leaving their wives prevented from taking on a religious remarriage.

This particular grouping has quite a different agenda–using the current overhyped fears of Muslim law to pull on its coattails. And it’s a totalitarian rather than a libertarian agenda:

Clearly, public interest, and particularly the interests of women and children, requires an end to Sharia and all faith-based courts and tribunals.
Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.

The sponsors are clearly blinded by their own self-importance and self-righteousness. They don’t seem to have any consciousness that human rights and freedoms include the right to religion–and that means not just whatever ideas people hold in their heads, but how they organize and cement their relationships and the practices of their daily lives.

Say NO to two laws in one country. Sharia is bollocks and goes against any concept of law that we have built here.

If I go to Scotland I will live under their laws, and should I for some reason go to a muslim country I will be expected to live under their laws. I would certainly expect Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to say no if I demanded my familiar English law to be enacted for my benefit.

But Sharia is divisive, designed to favour some individuals over others. So stop playing games here and say no to Sharia.

Unless you think this is an intellectual game of course.

jr:

“For example, a recent case was cited where a woman in an inheritance case was persuaded by the sharia tribunal to accept a lesser amount than she would probably have got in a normal court. But what can be done if the woman in question wants to take the lesser amount as an expression of her piety?”

And what happens when her children reach the age of majority, and launch a compensation claim against the state for allowing them to be deprived of their rightful inheritance in favour of their cousins?

The state must be even handed. If she wants to be pious, she can give her legacy away without implicating the state. Then her children can only sue her, not the taxpayer.

The issue here is not about people agreeing to be bound by sharia law, toss of a coin, or any other method of arbitration. It is about bullies who want their judgements imposed by the ultimate force of the state, with all that this implies, even if one of the parties wants to back out. And there is no way we should let that happen.

At the risk of provoking charges of paradoxical philosemitism again, I’d like to thank Judy for her erudite posting on this thread. A sensible solution, but just how would such ‘provision’ be regulated and administrated, Judy? The entire corpus of Islamic law has never been codified, and the only legal textbooks are those elucidating the traditional legal instruments: who could we trust to regulate the 5 major legal schools plus the Ismaili’s who have a substantial community in London? Wouldn’t this require an enormous bureacracy given that there are something like 2 million UK Muslims? The numbers of Orthodox Jews are much smaller. Would numbers play a role here too?

So when is the campaign against Beth Din courts up and running Maryam?

Oh I forgot the Muslim community is a soft target

Trundlemaster

“My experiences with one particular Beit Din was as far from ‘medieval religious bigotry’ as you could possibly find.”

In Beth Din courts women are forbidden to be witnesses!!!

“I think people should be allowed to run their own religoius affairs in the UK and that includes where necessary arbitration panels etc. However where these panels or courts can be proved to contravene UK equality laws such as is blindingly obvious in the case of Shariah then those particular arbitration panels should not be allowed.”

Perhaps you would like to share your personal experience of sharia courts

field

“What a great campaign - and it’s fantastic to see plenty of Muslim names associated with it, giving a voice to the many Muslims who know what Shariah means and don’t wish to be subjected to its rules.”

Yes like the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

“Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s;
a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband”

These are simply lies

“To blame an entire religion with a 1,300 year history — much of it benign”

OK can we have some examples of the benign bits please. I presume you must be talking about the parts where Islam did not indulge in slavery, piracy, paedophilia, ethnic chauvinism, anti-black racism, execution of apostates, persecution of artists or murderous onslaught on polytheists. Unfortunately my knowledge of history is somewhat limited and I have not come across this period in Islamic history yet. No doubt you can enlighten me.

virgil: not disagreeing with you, in fact you made my initial point, which is that the catholic book also is full of nonsense, which, as you say, many modern catholics choose to ignore. Same with non-observant jews like me. i just think blaming the religion, rather than the folks who choose to interpret it in a fundamentalist way, is a cheap and easy, not to mention bigoted and stupid.

Judy 11:15. Are you seriously accusing me of saying that Jews control the government?

Field:
I presume you must be talking about the parts where Islam did not indulge in slavery, piracy, paedophilia, ethnic chauvinism, anti-black racism, execution of apostates, persecution of artists or murderous onslaught on polytheists. Unfortunately my knowledge of history is somewhat limited and I have not come across this period in Islamic history yet. No doubt you can enlighten me.

What the hell are you talking about. Either you are saying that every Muslim through time has partaken in at least one of these activities or you are divorcing Islamic history from Muslims. If the first is true, you’re wrong and clearly have a horribly warped vision of Muslims. If the second is true, your point is ridiculous.

It was Vildechaye who claimed with reference to Islam’s 1,300 year history that it could be characterised as “much of it benign”.

It’s not unreasonable to ask for some examples.

So Gsirrah, I think you misunderstand the position. It is Vildechaye who is making the historical claim that much of Islamic history has been benign.

I think by the way that in most of Islamic history (i.e. till the non-Muslim colonial powers invaded from about 1800 onwards) the vast majority of Muslims did indeed partake in at least one of those evils. As a matter of historical fact - child marriage and slavery being so ubiquitous in the Islamic world and Islam being everywhere associated with piracy (as it is to this day - where are most of the piracy hotspots?).

I take it these guys also campaign against Beth Din?

field,

I’m like you in being historically “challenged”–must have slept through those lectures dealing with those expansive peaceful periods of Moslem rule……

The Abbasid caliphate was relatively peaceful for its time, including the Jewish “golden ages” in babylon, then in spain. Saladin was much more statesmanlike, if not peaceful, than the boorish crusaders he chucked out of palestine (who murdered most of the indigenous jewish population). If you guys want to condense 1300 years of history into Arab/Muslim’s greatest hits of slaughter be my guest, but the historical record simply does not bear that out. Yes it’s true that Arabs were heavily into the slave trade and piracy, but then again so were the Europeans. The venetians were responsible for the sack of constantinople in 1204 that ultimately ruined the byzantine empire…
It’s well known that Jews were extremely well treated by the Abbasids in Babylonia (prompting mar samuel to establish the jewish rule of loyalty to one’s ruler)… I’m hardly whitewashing the Muslims, but to focus on them historically is ridiculous given the excesses of the christian world during the same time period. Today of course is a different story, but there’s no need to rewrite history. the muslims, certainly the abbasid caliphate and then the ottomans, were relatively good to jews by the standards of the day.

From the Jewish Historical Atlas, 1992, published by Alfred A. Knopf:

The legal status accorded to non-Muslims made the Arab conquest seem far more benevolent towards vanquished peoples than the previopus rule of Persians, Byzantines or Visigoths. Protected by the new rulers, Jews and Christians of all denominations found their situation considerably improved undr the domination of the Crescent.
This was already evident in Mohammed’s lifetime in the conditions of surrender offered to the Jews of Elath and Maqna in southern Palestine. The conditions included many of th eelements which were later to appear in Islamic legal literature concerning war and conquest. In exhcange for their military and political subjugation, which implied a series of specific obligations such as paying tribute, aiding the Muslim war effort and not assisting the enemy, Jews were offered physical security, religious and economic liberty and autonomy for their community. Thus, the jews, formerly “tolerated”, now became protected (dhimmi). In Palestine, after the persecution of [Roman Byzantine] Emperor Heraclius I in the 630s, this consituted a substantial improvement. The Jews therefore willingly accepted their new masters, and some traditions even claim that they delivered Caesarea and Hebron to the Muslims.”

There are further chapters like this right up until the 1300s. Similar quotations about the Ottomans in the 1500s, and so on. After that, of course, the Muslim world was in serious decline.

Finally, “at the beginning of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire and its Jewish community entered a period of decline. The loss of power, wealth and prestige of the Jewish millet (autonomous community) corresponded with the rise of the Christian minorities — first the Greeks, then the Armenians, and finally the Arabic-speaking Christians. The Christians were in many ways better placed than the Jews: far more numerous, [and] educated in European [Christian] schools which the Jewish children could not attend… Thus, although the Turks continued to favor the Jews, Jewish merchants and middlemen were gradually replaced by Christian competitors.”

So go ahead, tell me how dreadful Islam has always been vis a vis christianity, especially toward Jews.

Ahistorical morons! read a book

I am personally against women being the defacto primary custodial parents after a divorce. This whole business of single motherhood makes her among the poorest people in soceity. Men should get custody considering that they have more earning power.

I dont see how and why any government would be or should be able to decide how much anyone is able to inherit after a person’s death. Your money, your business.

Anotherhypocrite said:”In Beth Din courts women are forbidden to be witnesses!!!”

That is not a blanket rule. Many Progressive Batai Din not only allow women to be witnesses but some movements have a rule that there must be at least one female Rabbi sitting as one of the three Dayan.

Show me a similar set up in a Shariah court. If you can.

ANOTHERHPHYPOCRITE, I know you’ve been visiting those Nazi and Islamo-Nazi sites with all sorts of quotes about the Talmud.

“You can put lipstick on ANOTHERHPHYPOCRITE but he/she/it’s still a pig”.

Come back and we’ll cook you bacon.

Judy (http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada): If you are going to come here and make highly offensive personal attacks on other commenters without actually reading or comprehending their point of view, perhaps you could at least have the courtesy to check back for a reply. Or perhaps you are far too important to do that.

Judy wrote (approvingly) that:

“The UK legal provision for Jewish law for example strengthens the position of Jewish women in divorce cases where the original marriage was a Jewish religious one, since UK courts will not grant a “secular” divorce until the Beth Din grants a divorce.”

Is that true?

Because if it is true that the UK courts will not grant a civil divorce until the Beth Din grants a religious one, then there is a real problem here, regardless of the possible benefits for some women with nasty husbands. I’m Irish (hence my ignorance of how the Beth Din system functions in the UK) and I’m reminded of some of the debates prior to divorce being made possible here in Ireland. Certain conservative Catholics, aware that things weren’t going to stay as they had been, argued that divorce should remain unavailable for those married as Catholics. In other words, some people would sign a contract that could be broken in certain circumstances, others a contract that could not be broken. It isn’t an exact parallel, as divorce is not forbidden by Judaism, but it’s certainly analogous, as it also involves different ‘degrees of being married’ in the eyes of the State. In Ireland, the idea didn’t fly at all, thankfully.

UK courts will not grant a “secular” divorce until the Beth Din grants a divorce.

No its not true.

The chief rabbinate lobbied for this but it didn’t happen. (It may happen in some cases). For this reason the United Synagogue recommend pre-nuptial agreements.

Thanks for clearing that up j.r.

I was a bit surprised by the idea, I must say.

Followed that link, j.r., and I think I see what Judy is referring to, in the FAQs on divorce:

“Under the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002, a person whose spouse is refusing to give/accept a Get can apply to the Court handling the civil divorce, for an Order preventing the Court making a Decree Absolute until such time as a Get has been given/accepted.”

If I’m reading this correctly, a person with grounds for a civil divorce cannot be denied this if the other party refuses to give/accept a Get. What it prevents is someone (presumably less pious/dependent on community approval) divorcing civilly and vindictively preventing their legal ex-spouse (presumably more pious/dependent on community approval) from remarrying religiously, which seems fair enough.

It’s a complex area!

Yes the main point I think is that the court isn’t bound to put pressure on the recalcitrant party in regard to the get, although it may do so. This was covered in detail in the JC in 02 and there was general disappointment that the change in the law didn’t completely ’solve’ the problem of agunot, although it is an improvement.

BV:
“I dont see how and why any government would be or should be able to decide how much anyone is able to inherit after a person’s death. Your money, your business.”

The Law has to apply in the case of intestacy, and ensure that the interests of all dependants are equitably dealt with.

You can make a will, and in general, it will be enforced in law. (I would expect that if you disinherit a dependant juvenile, the courts would have a duty to intervene on the child’s behalf.)

But if you haven’t made a will, the rules of intestacy must be applied to your estate.

Incidentally, your other comment about custodial parents doesn’t stack up. Fathers with full time jobs and careers, who wind up with custody of their children, are going to face the same difficulties as Mothers. Care of young children tends not to be compatible with the career that turned the Father into a good earner in the first place. That job often has to go. And there are precious few part time jobs for menfolk. The problem isn’t just single mothers. Single parent families always have a tough time.

This is a tremendously important campaign and we should all get behind it.

Old Labour

You are quite right and the senior legal establishment are four square behind incorporating Sharia (always always mispronounced by every fucking one of the pious lecturers on multi-culturalism its Sha-reeah not Sha-ree-ah ie rhymes with ‘tarier’ (more viscous) rather than Maria (mother of God) as a mark of commitment to diversity and multi-culturalism.

Its weird but true and I must post on this but I have rather a lot on at the moment, not to say supporting secular lawyers.

A couple of points there is extensive knowledge of what happens when Sharia exists in parallel (from the most informal to the most rigid of legal formulations) with other legal systems.

Almost every country with a significant or dominant muslim population has had or now has some combination of a dual.

But although the utterly moncultural legal plenipotentiaries are willing to re-engineer the whole enlightenment legacy for the idea of a dispensation to a population to be placated they are not prepared to study other legal systems where all the answers already lie.

Significantly not one country in the World has a legal system that reflects faithully any of the schools of jurisprudence that constitute Sharia.

Iran has a civil and criminal code ‘influenced by Sharia’.

Saudi Arabia has the closest to a pure Sharia system in that Jurists can overule on grounds of piousness (yes this will ve a novel form of legal judgement that can overide mere evidence or testimony and trump any victim ‘impact statement’).

Of course Saudi Arabia being a monarchy and a nation state (not a community of the Umma ruled by wise jurists) still has royal executive legislative powers that can make any law they want.

So the end result in all of these countries is conflict of jurisdictions, judgements and rights of appeal vs parallel track legal hearings.

Worse these same legal elites claim, most disengenuously, that there will be no conflict because English law will remain supreme and undiluted, other than by recognising the contractual arrangements of people who wish voluntarily to be bound by their own agrteements.

This is hogwash, if English law is to reign supreme how could it unless tested by conflict, challenge and litigation.

In answer to Chris C and Dave W and the libertarian asocial tendencies of the English Common law, it is only possible to make private agreements of a contractual nature, with an agreement to be bound by a private system of arbitration to the extent that they do not contravene English law in procedural or substantive matters.

Thus for instance we have certain rules of evidence and other procedures that grant a fair and free due process before a competent tribunal.

Lower level tribunals (eg Transport, Employment and of course Muslim arbitration tribunals) must comply with rules of natural justice (the right to put ones case) the lower standards of evidence and the inquisitorial nature of tribunals mean that there must be avenues of appeal up the hierachy of courts if necessary all the way to the top until one gets a final judgement.

Consent to an agreement is not sufficient legal protection in many cases.

In negligence law, despite being made to sign waver forms before bungee jumping, you cannot consent to negligently caused severe injury or death, and those liable cannot exclude themselves from the reach of law by agreement, if they didn’t tie you on then they are negligent.

Consent is also a mess in English law in relation to power and sexual relationships.

The Lords have ruled that a wife can consent to being branded by her husband as a form of personal adornment, but a man can not have his scrotum nailed to a coffe table by another man.

Similarly while senior judges dislike european human rights law, believing the liberatrian, laissez faire licence of English law to be superior, and seek to protect the rights of private clubs and associations to set their own rules and discriminate in selection and exclusion, even they have had to recognise that clubs can’t keep (even willing) slaves in their basements or deny scholarships to women.

George

The issue of Beth din and divorce has been endlessley debated here (search the archives) but in short (not denying the positive and progressive applications of the law in practice) yes the courts will uphold and enforce, or rather deny a remedy dependent upon, a decision of a beth din.

As far as I understand it a man who has previously formally and religiously bindingly agreed to grant his wife a get or a religious divorce, but who then reneges on this agreement choosing to get a secular divorce and a secular remarriage (this is reasonably common and is devastating for the woman who cannot religiously re-marry contrary to a promise) may be denmied (at the discretion of the Judge) a decree nisi, pending his fulfillment of a promise to give a get (that sounds weird).

So in a very small and non harmfull way beth din judgements can be enfoced by the secular courts.

I think and have argued that thisis a serious problem not in and of itself but because of the precedent which is manipulated by islamists who want something quite different.

I think that this is a problem and there are other solutions (as in a Canadian supreme court ruling) that avoid the situation where a secular judge is required to rule on and find binding a decision by a wholly different kind of religious tribunal.

But for ANYONE WHO WANTS A SHORT ROUTE INTO UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS FOR A MULTI-CULTURALdemocracy of insituting even a limited domestic or personal jurisdiction for Sharia or religious law;

Google Shah Bano and you find the Indian supreme court decision that caused fractures in the constitution of India and communal tensions.

The Muslim domestic law based on Sharia was actuallintroduced by the Raj in the 1930’s ostensibly to placate Muslim demands.

Many secular Indians have argued that this in fact drove a permanent wedge between the communities making a unified greater India impossible and forever putting the goal of a unfifed indian civil code out of reach

I don’t if anyone has already pointed it out but there does seem to me a profound contradiction in this campaign - it calls for “one law for all” get argues that religious group should be treated differently from secular organisations!

Well done to all in the U.K. for this sensible and courageous measure. It is wonderful to see the U.K. taking the lead on this issue.

Best regards,
Gail S

Monty,

Everyone should make a will before they die. It isnt the responsibility of the government to be equitable with your estate. What if I had a child who was a college grad and the other a drug abuser?

If the odds are stacked against both parents what sense does it make to make the mother the primary custodian? Its been my expirience that while children need both their parents, as they get older a father becomes more essential.

Also its a lot easier for a father to remarry with children then it is for a mother. Step mothers can better intergrate into a family with existing children than a step father. Men are often less willing to marry a woman with children, especially teenaged children.

BV:

“Everyone should make a will before they die. It isnt the responsibility of the government to be equitable with your estate. What if I had a child who was a college grad and the other a drug abuser?”

The state only gets involved if you’re an idiot who hasn’t made a will. Gedditt!!!

vildechaye

Historically, Islam was at its most benign when it was most thoroughly dissolved into a rich surrounding non-Muslim culture. The glories of the Abbasid era, for instance, happened when the overwhelming majority of people living within the Caliphate were non-Muslims. It was the existing Roman Christian, Persian and Jewish dhimmi culture which civilized the Muslim Arabs - just as it was the existing Chinese culture which civilized the descendants of Genghis Khan. Until the discovery of oil, the Arabian gulf - the one place where purist Islam was never tempered - was always considered a barbarous backwater, even by Arabs.

And there were always times when “back to basics” Islam and the example of Muhammad would return with a vengeance. These were always bad times for non-Muslims. I urge you to read more about the Islamic conquests of India, especially the actions of Mahmud of Ghazni and Timur The Great. The Indian historian K.S. Lal has estimated that these Muslim conquests killed around 80 million Hindus.

The fundamental problem with Islam is Muhammad. Consider the Buddha, Jesus, Guru Nanak, Joseph Smith and even L. Ron Hubbard. However much you may dislike any of these religious figures, there is simply no comparison with Muhammad. Muhammad’s personal body count, as recorded in the Hadith and Sunnah, runs into the hundreds, and maybe thousands. He particularly relished decapitation. The people who decapitated Daniel Pearl were directly imitating the example of their religion’s founder. The specific reason Saudi Arabia refuses to permit any religion but Sunni Islam is because, on his deathbed, Muhammad called on his followers to ethnically cleanse the entire Arabian peninsula of all non-Muslims.

Christians have done terrible things throughout history. You are absolutely right about this. But they always knew such actions directly contradicted the personal example of Christianity’s founder, who refused to kill anyone. Las Casas, for instance, sought to end the violence of the Conquistadors by directly appealing to the example of Jesus. Contrast this with Timur, who specifically justified his decapitation of 100,000 Hindus by quoting the example of Muhammad.

Re I’m reminded of some of the debates prior to divorce being made possible here in Ireland. Certain conservative Catholics, aware that things weren’t going to stay as they had been, argued that divorce should remain unavailable for those married as Catholics.

Comment the RC are still at it in Poland. See 1993 Concordat

The most contentious points of the concordat in the public controversy over it in Poland were the obligation for the state to provide Catholic religious education in public schools if requested and the “concordat marriage” provison which calls for changes in Polish marital law to deny those married under Canon Law the right to seek a civil divorce.
Text on:

http://www.concordatwatch.eu

Article 10

1. From the moment of solemnisation, matrimony according to Canon Law shall be subject to such effects as a marriage contracted according to Polish law, if

(i) between the spouses there exist no impediments according to Polish law
(ii) upon the solemnisation of marriage the persons concerned make a joint expression of will to such effect and
(iii) the solemnisation of marriage has been registered in civil registers and notice has been served at the State Civil Registry within five days from the solemnisation of the marriage; this time limit may be prolonged, should it not have been observed due to force majeure, until such time as the situation is resolved.

2. Preparation for the celebration of marriage according to Canon Law shall involve instructing the spouses on the indissolubility of Canon Law marriage and on the legal provisions of Polish law concerning the effects of marriage.

3. It is within the exclusive competence of ecclesiastical authorities to make a judgement as to the validity of Canon Law marriage, as well as any other grounds laid down by Canon Law.

4. Passing judgements on matrimonial cases within within the limits of Polish legislation falls within the exclusive competence of State civil courts.

5. The question of notification of ajudication referred to in Subsections (ii) and (iii) may be subject to proceedings in accordance with Article 27.

6. With a view to making the current Article practicable, changes which need to be made to Polish law shall be made to Polish legislation.