Sharia Law in the UK?

[nichomach]

I'd just like to add that what he said was pretty much in line with what pp05 says (my wife was there and actually heard him). For a limited range of civil matters where both parties agree then a dispute could be settled before a Sharia court; similar to the provisions made for both Jews (the Beth Din) and Roman Catholics. Any arrangement would have to exclude any possibility of oppression of women etc. What he's essentially talking about are things like supplementary jurisdiction. For a transcript, see The Archbishop of Canterbury - Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective - it does get pretty technical, however. Whether you agree or not with his conclusions, what he's saying is a lot different to how it's been presented.

[chuckskull]

Some accommodation for people who wish to follow religious laws does need to be made, religious freedom is one of the basic tenets of our society, but no more so than is applied for other religions as nichomach pointed out, and it should not directly conflict with or supersede the basic freedoms and laws that are already in place in this country. This like most things is going to be hugely sensationalised by the media I expect.

[pollaxe]

I'm all for religious freedom *but* the law of the land is there to be followed by everyone. Catholic adoption agencies do not like having to consider gay couples for adoption for example but they are now legally obliged to do so.

I'm in favour of an increased secularisation of the law and moving it away from the various faiths as I believe this sort of thing as proposed by Rowan Williams actually becomes more divisive in practice.

[nichomach]

I'm all for religious freedom *but* the law of the land is there to be followed by everyone. Catholic adoption agencies do not like having to consider gay couples for adoption for example but they are now legally obliged to do so.

I actually agreed with the enforcing of that at the time, but then nothing in what Williams has just said would impact upon that in the slightest; any use of Sharia would be between consenting parties to either a process or dispute (it couldn't be imposed on anyone), and would be under the umbrella of "British" law (note, I'm using that rather than list all the jurisdictions - can it be assumed that if in future I say British law I AM aware of the jurisdictional differences between the various constituent parts of the UK and that there is no single body of British law and I'm just trying to save time?)

I'm in favour of an increased secularisation of the law and moving it away from the various faiths as I believe this sort of thing as proposed by Rowan Williams actually becomes more divisive in practice.

I disagree; if the mechanism proposed recognises the sovereignty of British law and that it is allowed to operate as a supplementary to that law and is subject in the final analysis to it, then I think it provides a useful way to integrate the practice of faith with a secular society. The Beth Din doesn't stop Jews being subject to the law of the land, and neither do ecclesiastical courts do that for Roman Catholics (you'll note that those adoption agencies must now abide by that law or shut up shop).

Look, there are all sorts of circumstances where the law allows people to devise or consent to alternate methods of dispute resolution. I work in the building trade and a great many disputes there never see a courtroom because it's written into the standard contract that disputes go before an independent and mutually agreed arbitrator. If any party refuses or doesn't abide by the settlement then it can go to the courts. That doesn't mean that the building trade isn't subject to the law, merely that it's devised or consented to a procedure which works better for their needs; it's not that different to what's being proposed here. No-one's imposing a system on anyone that doesn't agree to it, and it wouldn't supersede or overrule secular law.

[[GSV]Trig]

Law and Religion shouldnt mix.

[nichomach]

Law and Religion shouldnt mix.

Which is the position adopted by people who are not religious and see no need to tolerate those who are.

[pollaxe]

I disagree;

As is your right!

Looking at your points would it be safe to say that you are arguing that a system of arbitration and common consent works already in this country between people of certain faiths/backgrounds? If so, I agree and have no problem with that. Of course things work on a common level and also our society is (hopefully) free and mature enough to allow such things.

However, things start getting a bit more complicated once you start drawing on human rights legislation and the like. Take for instance Sikhs and crash helmets - because of their beliefs and what they refer to as The Turban Victory - they are exempted from wearing crash helmets. So - what's your view - good thing or bad thing? The law has adapted (IIRC it was back in the 1970s too) to accommodate their religious sensitivities. Doesn't this suggest that British law is flexible enough once put to the test or does it suggest pressure can be brought to bear in a way that people who aren't prepared to compromise can win a legal exemption? Do you think the Catholic adoption agencies would have such success campaigning to be exempt from gay adoption etc? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

My point is that I'm sure Sharia and other customs are alive and well and work very well in a limited and common basis amongst certain groups for the means of arbitration and compromise between willing parties. What I'm not so sure about is when such things start breaking out into the wider legal context. There will be test cases about Islamic women wearing veils in ID photographs (I'm pretty sure there was one recently anyway) but my own feeling is that whilst a law must and should reflect the wider population of a country then the more 'interest groups' that start pushing for recognition under law for exemptions and differences then the more complex and discriminatory the process ultimately becomes.

Common sense suggests issues that do not need legal exercise are already in place and working between various communities and faiths - what Rowan Williams has done is provoke an unneccessary debate trying to force faith back into spotlight when in reality it's already there and working. My own view is that a secular position such as that used in France is a superior solution to much of what we have in the UK at present however, if it ain't broke over here then don't try to fix it.

[nichomach]

Looking at your points ...such things.

Exactly so, and that's precisely what Williams is arguing that we may need to consider.

However... - good thing or bad thing?

It's their choice and realistically the only people it really affects by and large are them, so on balance, good thing.

The law has adapted (IIRC it was back in the 1970s too) to accommodate their religious sensitivities...

It's not a question of sensitivities; it's a question of an entire process in arriving at settlements. The crash helmets thing is a bad analogy, since that was one single question that could be decided and then left. What we're talking about here is allowing a process compatible with Islamic belief within the overarching umbrella of British law; that's an entirely different matter.

Do you think the Catholic adoption agencies would have such success campaigning to be exempt from gay adoption etc? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

They've already lost that one and rightly so since what they were arguing for was in conflict with the established principle that in matters of law affecting children, the welfare of the child is to be considered first and paramount.

My point is that I'm sure Sharia and other customs are alive and well and work very well in a limited and common basis amongst certain groups for the means of arbitration and compromise between willing parties.

Which is all that Williams is proposing.

What I'm not so sure about is when such things start breaking out into the wider legal context.

Given that there is no "breakout" since all that is being proposed is that arrangements between mutually consenting parties be recognized, I don't see your point.

There will be test cases about Islamic women wearing veils in ID photographs (I'm pretty sure there was one recently anyway)...

Irrelevant to this discussion, since at no point is any exemption proposed by Williams.

Common sense suggests issues that do not need legal exercise are already in place and working between various communities and faiths...

Incorrect; what we have is a situation where some faiths like Judaism and Roman Catholicism are recognized legally, but Islam is not. Allowing dispute resolution between mutually consenting parties before Sharia courts places Islam on a footing of parity with other faiths.

what Rowan Williams has done is provoke an unneccessary debate trying to force faith back into spotlight when in reality it's already there and working.

Except that it isn't since Islamic jurisprudence isn't officially recognised where those of other faiths are. Williams' speech is a good example of constructive engagement between faiths that's being misrepresented by the tabloids (as per bloody usual) and used as an opportunity to whip up a moral panic by a bunch of rent-a-quote right wingers and Mail journalists.

My own view is that a secular position such as that used in France is a superior solution to much of what we have in the UK at present however, if it ain't broke over here then don't try to fix it.

Firstly, what France has tried to do is effectively forbid the practice of faiths with outward symbols. In doing so they've marginalised, excluded and made second-class citizens of their Islamic population to the baying support of their secularists; effectively, they played to their equivalent of Mail readers and what do you know, those same people hail it as a great success. Secondly, what we have over here is a situation that IS broken, and could be easily fixed without sacrificing the primacy of UK law, without adversely affecting anyone else, and without losing the basic protection that all citizens are entitled to.

[[GSV]Trig]

Which is the position adopted by people who are not religious and see no need to tolerate those who are.

Really, well your right I'm not religious, as for tolerating others, I'm a few patient tolerant person, so much for that idea..

We goto other countries and abide by there law, why should England be any different.

As said above..

People won't integrate if you give them more ways to be divided!

Thing is all these people that come over here come over because its better than where they were originally, thing is if they bring all there laws and stuff with them what makes this place better than where they started off?

[nichomach]

Really, well your right I'm not religious, as for tolerating others, I'm a few patient tolerant person, so much for that idea..

Your stated position says otherwise.

We goto other countries and abide by there law, why should England be any different.

And Sharia actually obliges Muslims to abide by the law of the country that they are living in. Or did you not know that? Within that law, why shouldn't they have agreements made by mutual consent and mutually agreed methods of dispute resolution recognised? Oh, because even though it has nothing to do with you, and will never affect you, you don't like the sound of it, so that's that. Never mind that we already do it for other faiths and, hell, even (as noted above) for particular industries.

Thing is all these people that come over here come over because its better than where they were originally, thing is if they bring all there laws and stuff with them what makes this place better than where they started off?

Riiiiight...because there're no British Muslims, are there? No people who were born here, lived here all their lives and just happen to be Muslim? They should all go back where they came from, shouldn't they, with their evil foreign ways. Unless of course "where they came from" happens to be, say, Kensal Green, or Blackburn, or Birmingham...

[iranu]

My issue with sharia law for those that want it is that I'd be surprised if any woman would want to do so for a divorce or child custody case. However, culturally she may well be forced to go through a sharia court which as we know does not give equal rights to women. And this is the problem. It's the people doing the interpretation that you have to watch. I don't think that they would be anywhere near as impartial and fair and this is why I don't want to see it happen. Any sort of regulation will be pointless because as soon as the system is criticised they will be screaming racism and islamophobia from the rooftops.

Read this story Women face prison for ignoring a murder under their own roof - Times Online. Even her own family didn't step in to help her because of their religion. What sort of chance do you think she would have had in a sharia court for divorce and who would get the best deal?

How about this woman? Her marriage was recognised by sharia law.

When the girl arrived from Pakistan expecting to meet the handsome man she had been shown in a photograph, she found that he was 40 years old, unemployed and disabled.

To make matters worse, her mother-in-law decided to exploit her attractive looks by forcing her into prostitution.....

...The girl's marriage last April was not recognised by the Home Office but was approved by the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain.

Family of teen Muslim invited men to rape her - Times Online

So no I don't want to see anything that legitimises this type of oppression.

Secondly I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge. It's like that mosque in Oxford wanting to broadcast prayers. Once you let them do it once it will become a precedent. In the current climate a small band of muslims are pushing the British state as far as they can and I think it's time that we drew the line until these people are properly integrated into Britain and we don't have to worry about the extremists.

[nichomach]

You're correct in that implementation is key, but a lot of the assumptions made about what "Sharia" involves are based far more upon what's been implemented in other countries, and Williams is probably correct in that that's far more associated with the culture of those countries than anything inherent in "Sharia" itself. Including, by the way, the status of women. It is worth noting that NOTHING that Williams has proposed would legitimise the examples that you give even by implication, or prevent the same prosecutions occurring or the same convictions resulting. I also don't accept the "thin end of the wedge" argument as being in any way necessarily true. If that were the case we would already be living in a Judaic or Roman Catholic theocracy, since they have already had similar systems allowed for them.

edit: As far as the second story goes, you might try looking at some of the comments below it from Muslims noting exactly how misleading the story was, why the so-called "approval" was nothing more than a rubber stamp - and why exactly the same ceremony could have occurred at a UK registry office and exactly how that "marriage" was in fact void under Sharia law.

[iranu]

I found this which I think sums up my point much better.

"If the Jewish community have a choice to operate their own courts in the UK, it is not surprising that Muslims are now asking for Sharia courts too. So perhaps this debate should also include whether any form of religious arbitration should be allowed.

"But I personally think that we should not have Sharia courts as the majority of Muslims do not want it. Many Muslim commentators and the media are wrongly assuming that all Muslims want Sharia law in the UK.

"Various polls have so far indicated that around 40% want Sharia law. Although this is a significant percentage, why ignore the views of the other 60%?

"Many Muslims are likely to be against Sharia because the interpretation and implementation... varies throughout the Islamic world.

"As Muslims in the UK are from across the world and therefore very diverse, it is unlikely all Muslims would ever agree to a single interpretation or implementation."

"What's more, I think it is unlikely that women would be included in any arbitration council. Although Islam gives women numerous Islamic rights, many Muslim women would fear discrimination due to patriarchal and cultural reasons. Muslims, particularly women may be pressurised by families and communities into using Sharia courts." - SHAISTA GOHIR, GOVERNMENT ADVISOR ON MUSLIM WOMEN

BBC NEWS | UK | Reaction in quotes: Sharia law row

[Blackmage]

Could we have Christian law in Muslim country's?

[Blitzen]

Our legal system has bugger all to do with religious belief and thats the way it should stay.

How the hell any one in same mind can say that we can have 2 seperate laws running side by side is a joke.

Maybe the Dr. Rowan only meant that a 'few civil' laws needed to be amended in favour of Sharia Law. No!!!!!!!! Its wrong and shouldnt happen.
Not only that. If we give in to a few laws, the cracks will start to appear.....more of these ridiculous, third world laws will be introduced and before we know it the entire population will be forced into a mosque once a week.

Im sorry if this sounds racist/non-pc, but if i wanted to live in a Muslim state i would move to one.
I dont...this is MY home and i am a native of these shores.

This Muslim thing has gone far enough now and slowly...but surely....they are taking over and i for one am scared for the future of my children because of this..........

Civil War in Britain is fast approaching.........this will prbably be the ONLY way to stop what is happening.

The world would be such a boring place if we were all the same. Doesn't mean we all have to live on the same island in an imaginary 'multi-culture' by the same laws though.

[nichomach]

IBRAHIM MOGRA, MUSLIM COUNCIL OF BRITAIN

"We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth.

"We also have other examples... in our high streets we have compliant financial packages which have benefited our country's economy tremendously, so there is scope here for debate.

"It is very complex, it is not as straightforward as saying that we will have a system [in Britain]. We do not wish to see a parallel system or a separate system of judiciary for Muslims.

"We've seen examples of this in Ontario in Canada and in Singapore, where systems have worked very well."

SUHAIB HASSAN, UK ISLAMIC SHARIA COUNCIL

"In a secular society - which is very much applauded by the people here - that society itself demands that the Muslims live according to their religious beliefs.

"If the Jews can live according to their religious beliefs, why not the Muslims?"

DR GHAYASUDDIN SIDDIQUI, MUSLIM INSTITUTE

"I see his statement as a challenge to the Muslim community that they have to convince the wider society that we are at par with everybody in terms of human rights and so on and so forth."

I'd note that you appear unable or unwilling to respond on point; be that as it may:

There's no actual citation for the percentages that that Shaista Gohir cites; further she herself notes that interpretation varies widely throughout the world. Consequently, one could arrive at a British formulation of it. Further, use of the mechanism would be by mutual consent only. As far as the role of women is concerned that could also be part of the formulation of any formalised recognition.

I am not, it should be noted, saying that we should have Sharia courts, or attempting to mandate what those should be. However Williams is at least willing to discuss the engagement between faiths and between faith and the law without frothing at the mouth. Personally I think that's laudable.

edit: Blitzen, FFS, read what the guy actually said. This will never affect you or your precious children or how you live; it would only ever affect Muslims, and even then only those who choose this method of dispute resolution which would itself remain subject to British law. Ye gods and little fishes, it doesn't take much to get people frothing at the mouth over what they imagine people might have said, does it?