Opposing Sharia Arbitration Courts in UK
Update: Please see my more concise and thorough article called Strands of Sharia which evaluates the various arguments set forth supporting Sharia in the UK — and rejects them one by one. A shorter version of that article is available on Open Democracy.
This below is an early, rough and conversational outline form of my argument.
I promised earlier that I’d discuss why I oppose Sharia arbitration courts in the UK. Here are some reasons in no particular order. I hope Asim Siddiqui and Yahya Birt, who are both supporting the courts (in theory), are listening.
1 - Its not fair to other citizens to have their taxes be used to fund the religious practice of a few select people.
What about the Jewish Beth-Din courts — where three men (and never women) pass judgments — you reply? I didn’t know they existed. Now that I know, they should go too.
When in 2004 Canada refused to allow Islamic family law, it realized that it needed to repeal the Arbitration Act of 1991 that had allowed Jewish and other religious family law to be applied. Canada did so. Same thing should happen in the UK. (For more on the Sharia courts in Ontario go here).
Separation of church and state should be absolute.
2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.
- Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).
- Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).
- Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).
- Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).
- Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.
- In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.
- A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.
- This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.
The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that.
It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.
3 - Whose Sharia? (Rather, whose Fiqh).
I’m thinking that Shias are automatically out of the Sharia arbitration option since the normative version that will be approved will be Sunni.
Then you’ve got the issue of the fights between Sunni schools of law. Correct me if I’m wrong but under Hanafi law a girl doesn’t need a wali to get married but she does under Maliki law. Under Hanafi law a divorcing woman doesn’t need to show cause to get a khul‘ but under Maliki law she does. People don’t really check what fiqh their prospective spouse is. All this is going to create a huge headache for the arbitrator who, poor guy, is not likely going to be schooled in various kinds of Islamic law. This is going to increase the expense and delay for all parties.
4 - Coercion
I hear a lot that the arbitration courts don’t apply unless both parties consent.
I guess people forget that for Muslims, marriage is an all-family business. Heck, its in the Quran that in cases of marital-conflict you appoint two negotiators. You think these negotiators — whose primary motivation, due to social stigma, is going to be to keep the couple from divorcing — is not going to try and talk them towards the Sharia court?
Coercion won’t be by people putting a gun to the heads of women. Instead, women will be gently “reminded” (with a nice hard grasp on their arm) that if they don’t go to Sharia judge they will be seen as impious and not-devout. You have no idea of the power of social death.
We have enough issues of piety-pressure in our communities already. Half the girls I know that wear hijab do it because of piety-pressure. This pressure gets out of hand in cases of marriage, divorce and custody. Think about it. These days, even the most liberal and secular Muslims, when they get married, go through the entire nikah procedure/ceremony. This isn’t because they are religious (there is a nice open bar at the wedding hall). Its because of piety-pressure. It is an impeccably strong force. Muslims in the US are polled to be more socially conservative than Evangelical Christians (and Muslims in the UK are more conservative than American ones).
Then, there is the beating issue. Let’s say that a woman consents to going to the arbitration court, but once there, she wants to bring up domestic violence. What’s the Sharia judge going to say? “Was it with a stick the width of my thumb?” Give me a break. Also, the question arises, is the judge, in such a situation, going to be able to kick the matter up to a secular court in the form of an interlocutory appeal (an appeal that takes place during the case)? I suspect most people will say that the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, and we have to call a bunch of expert witnesses to the secular court, then why are we in the Sharia court in the first place? What about women beating men? It happens about 15% of the time. I don’t think Islamic family law even recognizes this.
5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law
Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?
And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)
6 - Misogyny in Muftis
Will there be female arbitrators? Conservatives are going to scream that the arbitrator plays the role of a Mufti and under Islamic law a woman cannot be a Mufti (just a jurist or muhaddith). Do we wait for the male arbitrator? What if only a female one is available and the party that refuses to be adjudged by a woman, after previously consenting to the Sharia court, now wants to go to the secular court. Is this allowable?
7 - Muslims are already engaged in Islamic courts so why not just have the government regulate it?
See number one.
Also, having government recognized courts makes them authoritative, and with social pressure it becomes hard to resist them.
8 - This is not going to lead to Islamic reform
Some reformers are arguing that if you initiate this program, as the kinks get worked out, it’ll essentially be a form of Islamic reform.
Uh, no. If you really want to be reformist, the thing to do is to convince Muslims that when they participate in the secular system, simply make a niyah (intention) in your head that you are trying to fulfill your Islamic protocols as well. For example, I have never understood why we do a wedding at city hall and a wedding at the hotel. The city hall wedding fulfills all the formal requirements of a nikah — contract, consent and witnesses. If the couple would just think “Ya Allah I do this to satisfy you!” then that’s a wedding recognized by Islam. I don’t see why this is so difficult. Same thing with divorce. When you file with the court, use intention to render it Islamic. We do this kind of mental Islam a lot. Think about it.
9 - Ghettoization
Muslims talk a lot about parts of the world where there is one law for Muslims and one law for Jews — ahem, Israel-Palestine — but when they themselves initiate distinctions between themselves and other people, its all gravy.
Fact is, I’d think its a perfectly Islamic idea that when your neighbors would get quite antagonized with you if you behaved a certain way, you should relent. Try gentle persuasion. If it doesn’t work, move (like Muhammad to Medina).
10 - Millet system is dead
Yes, I know, the Ottoman Empire recognized everyone according to their religion and gave each religious community the power to tax and adjudicate their matters.
First of all, we don’t live in a millet world. In fact, with the Tanzimat reforms, even the Ottomans did away with it. Do you know what was happening? Foreign powers were coming into the Ottoman Empire and saying that they were “protecting” the various religious enclaves. Let’s think about this. Let’s say the UK allows a Sharia arbitration system and doesn’t provide enough money in the budget to pay enough staff. Are Muslims going to ask Dubai for a check? Right, that won’t make your neighbors think you’re a fifth column.
Also, please show some historicist sophistication about the Ottoman Empire. They organized people according to religion because the clerics of various Christian groups were less prone to upsetting the status-quo and leading rebellions.
11 - Don’t stoke the hate
The roots of Christian anti-semitism lie in the Christian view that “spirit” trumps “law.” Christian fathers long considered law — specifically Jewish law — to be shifty and conniving. Then the Christians slaughtered six million Jews. {being a bit facetious}.
12 - This is not like halal meat
Getting halal meat standardization is not the same thing as Sharia arbitration because the issue here is of equality before the law and duties of citizenship, not digestion.
13 - Witness issues
You better believe that when it comes to resolution of these cases there is going to be witnesses that are going to have to be brought in. But under classical fiqh, the testimony of women is half that of men. Are we going to change that rule before the Sharia-arbitration goes into effect? If so, see number five above. Even if you try a reformist argument and say that the Quranic verses only apply the half the witness of a man rule to financial situations (and not personal ones), the fact is that there are plenty of financial issues in divorce, custody and inheritance.
14 - Liberal democracy, as is, is perfectly compatible with Islam
You aren’t making your country more Islamic or even earning more reward by going to Sharia arbitration courts. The Mufti of Egypt thinks liberal democracy is compatible with Islam. A traditionalist jurist, quoting a lot Ghazali, thinks that there is no incompatibility between being an orthodox Muslim and living in a liberal democracy.
Conclusion
There is absolutely no reason for a Muslim to support Sharia arbitration. If you’d like to live in a state where you can resolve your marital, custodial, and divorce disputes under the aegis of classical Islamic law, might I recommend the Gulf? It looks like America and tastes like the 7th century, perfect for a retrogressive Muslim. Cheaper gas for your very Islamic gas guzzler, too.
Opposing Sharia Arbitration Courts in UK
I’m opposing them.
With the exception of the misunderstanding and over-generalization of a few Quranic rules (such as inheritance and women’s testimony), I am in agreement with Ali.
However, why not discuss another solution:
As long as consenting adults are involved AND as long as they are open to expression of heretic ideas and unconditional freedom of expression in interfaith and intra-faith context, religious groups should be allowed having their own jurisdiction in matters concerning the adult members of the group. Perhaps, a few exception could be made regarding irreversible corporal penalties, etc.
I know such a freedom will open Pandora’s box, but why force religious minorities abide by the rules of the majority in such internal matters that the majority had little at stake? What do you think?
Peace,
Edip Yuksel
http://www.brainbowpress.com
http://www.19.org
http://www.islamicreform.org
http://www.muslimheretics.com
I appreciate very much your comments here and wholeheartedly agree with you on nearly everything. But may I say that your statement that “Christians slaughtered 6 million Jews” is a huge falsehood. Hitler and the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews, and while Hitler may have born a Christian, the Fascist/National Socialist ideology that was behind the “final solution” was in no way based on Christian doctrine and was not advocated by Christians. It was pure racism and a nationalist belief in the superiority of “Aryans”. There is no doubt that Christians should have done more to vocally and physically resist against the holocaust, especially German Christians, but there were thousands of Christians who risked their own lives to save Jews from Hitler’s madness as well. A blanket statement like “Christians slaughtered 6 million Jews” does not show a real understanding of what happened during the Holocaust. I also dispute your comment that the roots of Anti-Semitism lie in the “spirit” vs. “the law” difference between Christianity. In my opinion the roots of Christian Anti-Semitism lie in the early rivalry between Jews and the new Christians after Jesus’ death and the spreading of the hate-inducing idea that “Jews” as an entity (rather than a small group or a couple of individuals who were Jewish) were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. (Modern day anti-Semitism comes from all corners and is based in other rivalries with Jews throughout history) Despite these differences, I appreciate your post and think you make numerous important points.
“As long as consenting adults are involved AND as long as they are open to expression of heretic ideas and unconditional freedom of expression in interfaith and intra-faith context, religious groups should be allowed having their own jurisdiction in matters concerning the adult members of the group…”
If the consenting adults are rational, they don’t even need to pay an arm and a leg to lawyers to settle their divorce in secular courts. Divorce couples can settle their differences without the involvement of courts, sharia or secular. When courts are involved, the consenting adults are opposing each other. The court is their arbitrator. Thus a consensus must be arrived at to give beef to the arbitrator. As long as there is no consensus as to which intepretation of Sharia to follow, Sharia court cannot be an arbitrator.
I agree completely. My problem with opportunistic sellouts like Tarek Fatah was that they were aware of Jewish and Catholic courts and were fine with them, but had to toady up to their masters by running to denounce the Muslim equivalents. But the basic idea of Muslim (or catholic, or Jewish) religious courts in a secular land is laughable.
I don’t see any problem with permitting two individuals of roughly equivalent power and status within a community to voluntarily choose any mechanism for dispute resolution they can agree on in advance of the dispute, so long as the appeals path includes the civil/secular court system.
But problems arise when the individuals are of differing status or power; ascertaining true informed consent in such cases may be very difficult.
Good post. I more or less agree.
You are missing the main point.
Sharia is not a benign law book - it is the malignant inspiration of greating global islamic State.
The spirit and many Sharia laws as we see in present and past Sharia books are violation of the Quran, justice and human (specially women) rights
Sharia as the base of political Islam is the product of power politics and patriarchy.
Hasan Mahmud.
Very interesting post, Ali. Thanks for spelling out the practical issues involved here. And good to see you back on the blog!
“Separation of church and state should be absolute.”
Let’s start with disestablishing the Church of England.
I agree completely.
hear hear, sounds right to me!
Thabet, you bring up a good point,
But I’ve always regarded the Church of England’s official status to be an anachronism - sort of like the Queen. A thing for tour-books, not for real life. Or is it the mere symbolism that counts?
Courts are meant to decide real issues in the immediate lives of people. Which is why Ali is right to call out the whole Beth-Din court thing.
If there was, like, a “Court of Christ” or something - now that would be pretty scary.
I think you make the clear points of why there should be opposition to this as well as other religious based arbitration. In circles of faith I have high suspicion as to the fair willingness of all parties. Peer like pressure is bad enough in any community set isn’t it ?
[...] religion | Tags: great britain, islam, sharia, united kingdom | Ali Eteraz has a great post up at his blog about the idea of implementing opt-in sharia courts in the United Kingdom. The [...]
Great list of reasons Ali. Very logical. Although like Debie, I don’t think the whole Nazis/Christian comment was necessary.
[...] to see Ali Eteraz opposing them and providing logical reasons more eloquently than I [...]
You wrote: “What about the Jewish Beth-Din courts — where three men (and never women) pass judgments — you reply? I didn’t know they existed. Now that I know, they should go too.”
I think you should find out more about the Beth Din before calling for its abolition.
The London Beth Din has no jurisdiction whatsoever over criminal matters and so has no authority to arrest, imprison or punish.
In civil matters the LBD can only consider cases where both parties are Jewish and both are willing to have their issue brought before it.
I can find no mention that the London Beth Din receives any public funding - it is, I believe, funded by the United Synagogue.
If the proponents of Shari’a were to ask for something along the lines of the Beth Din, it should be considered but what they demand is something to supersede British law and that is quite another issue.
[...] Opposing Sharia Arbitration Courts in UK — U.S.-based blogger Ali Eteraz lists the problems he sees with incorporating sharia concepts [...]
Not so fast:
Proponents of Sharia arbitration are calling for exactly what the Beth Din are getting and they don’t want it in the area of criminal law either, just civil.
Support them now?
I still don’t support either.
This is just convenient systems old bearded men have put in place to uphold patriarchy.
Modest solutions to the Archbishop of Canterbury problem
Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury started quite a row when he suggested that Britain’s legal system should accommodate aspects of traditional Islamic law.
The British have been putting up with so much lately. I was wondering …
[...] Ali Eteraz makes the case against (in case you need to hear it). As for me, I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon. For one thing—though it’s not PC to bring this up, but it does reflect reality—there most certainly is a supernationalist streak in Britain, most obviously represented by its soccer hooligans. Potentially violent, uncontrollable “Islamophobia” is a real concern among this demographic, and it is not to be ignored. [...]
[...] Ali Eteraz makes the case against (in case you need to hear it). As for me, I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon. For one thing—though it’s not PC to bring this up, but it does reflect reality—there most certainly is a supernationalist streak in Britain, most obviously represented by its soccer hooligans. Potentially violent, uncontrollable “Islamophobia” is a real concern among this demographic, and it is not to be ignored. [...]
Why not? I thought it was quite fitting. This quote makes it quite appropriate:
The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.
-Adolf Hitler
By design, the secular state attempts to establish a common ground for all of its inhabitants (and it is another story the degree to which it has succeeded thus far). By design, a religion (any religion) attempts to establish a separate ground. Absolute separation of religion(s) and state, is the one separation that gives a chance to both.
In a secular state church and state must be separate this is the cornerstone of democracy. Everyone should follow the same laws that don’t discriminate on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or race. There should be absolutely exemptions for specific religious groups. The rights of women and minority groups must be protected because some people can use religious laws to exercise misogyny.
Sorry meant to say there should be no exceptions made for religious groups. Some people that are sexist want to use religious courts as a way to discriminate against women.
I agree totaly against Shariah laws in civilized nations, and Muslims should be in the front line against such “laws”. It is because those laws that they and/or their forefathers fled their islamic heavens. Why bring to the civilized nations laws that have never worked anywhere?
Danial — even if your quote is correct, just because Hitler cites Christianity as part of his vision of the basis of national morality does not mean that the massacre of millions of Jews was a Christian undertaking. In fact, the most brutal of Hitler’s acolytes, Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS was a believer in the occult, German mysticism, etc. Shall we say that believers in the occult massacred 6 million Jews? The point is that “Christians” did not make it a Christian cause to murder 6 million Jews. At worst you can say that some people who were raised Christian came to lead a Nationalist, Fascist movement that murdered 6 million Jews. And, as I said above, sadly, many other Christians did not stand up against it, though many bravely did risk their own lives to save Jews and others. But the blanket statement that eteraz made was wrong factually and inflammatory. Christianity was not the driving force behind Hitler’s rise to power — Nationalist sentiment and twisted views of racial superiority were. Christians have many things in their history that deserve reproach (The Inquisition, for example) — the holocaust is not one of them.
I’m in opposition to this. In order for the law to work, it should be the same for every citizen of the state in question. I was unaware of seperate Jewish courts as well, but I support the actions of Canada on this matter. While I believe religious freedom to be a basic tenet of liberal, democratic society, I do not believe that its tenets should be held in higher regard than a law shaped by several centures of blood and tears that seems to (usually) work fairly well. If two people wish for a divorce (for example) to be recognised under Sharia law, then this is of course their own imperative, and they should be allowed to go before a Sharia court. However, I am of the opinion that it should then be legally ratified by a UK court if it is to be seen as ‘Legal’ rather than simply ‘Religious’, thus ensuring that legal presidents, entitlement to child support, human rights etc are enforced. Christians (and the majority of non-denominational citizens in Britain today- remember the Uk is a post-Christian state, with only a small minority claiming particularly strong religous views-something we seem to forget occasionally in our urge to become more ‘American’.) have to abide by the Law, why should this be different for members of other religious orders?
Sharia Law is NOT divine law for muslims. It is an interpetration by an individual/group of divine laws based on the Quran and Sunnah so it obviously has a margin of error. That is why sharia law varies so greatly between different nations. The jurispruence started as a set form roughly 150 years after the departure of the Prophet from this world.
Its not FULL sharia law that is being proposed but partial.
In any case I dont have an opinion
“Christians have many things in their history that deserve reproach (The Inquisition, for example) — the holocaust is not one of them.”
Don’t forget the Orthodox priests blessing Serb militias when slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, or Maronite clergymen praising the Phalangists in Lebanon during their civil wars.
Though I am against Sharia law in England, I find it very insulting and IGNORANT that Matts would suggest not bringing them into civilized nations. As opposed to what those responsible for incquisiton and genocide. Please. And for your information, muslims abroad are not fleeing despotism, most of them move for economic immigration.
Eteraz, kuddos for this posting. My main concern is fairness, and I don’t think it helps the case moderate muslims are trying to make. Exactly what I voiced on my blog before reading yours. Can I add you to my blogroll?
M.
I think it is very noble that the Archbishop tried in a naive way to show Muslim community respect.
Eteraz, as a lawyer, I was expecting you to break out some technical distinctions that all countries share. For example, and I confess I am definitely NOT a lawyer, I would think that foreign nationals could request that the UK Courts allow the courts of their national origin to judge civil matters while criminal matters which affect the general public would have to be judged by local courts.
The root question is bigger than the Muslim “problem.” It is: how do you run a secular government and treat all subjects fairly? Is it rude to assume Christmas will be a national holiday but Eid al-Fitr would be a personal day? Etc… Of course it is.
In Deans World, we all have to follow the hegemonic dictates of the ruling class. However, in a noble and free society, the rights of the Individual are paramount. “Liberty” has become an excuse to kick down doors and tap phones. It use to mean individual freedom and respect of individual rights. The far right has bastardized this idea into some novel authoritarian idea where liberty means we all have to have the same beliefs and salute the same demagogue. Sickening.
What is being hashed out is the secular society and the Archbishop should be given a little slack for stumbling on this complex political question.
The world will not always be Black vs. White, Christian vs. Muslim, etc. The people who cannot get past this can go to hell.
OK come on now…Muslims are always complaining that terrorists and Islamists don’t speak for them…so why does Hitler (or the Serb Militias, or the Maronite clergymen, etc) speak for all Christians?
“so why does Hitler (or the Serb Militias, or the Maronite clergymen, etc) speak for all Christians?”
Exactly.
“Though I am against Sharia law in England, I find it very insulting and IGNORANT that Matts would suggest not bringing them into civilized nations. As opposed to what those responsible for incquisiton and genocide. Please. And for your information, muslims abroad are not fleeing despotism, most of them move for economic immigration.”
Amayel’s Notes: The whole point of Western European nations (and other Western non-European nations) over the past fifty years has been an attempt to move away from inquisition and genocide, obviously with mixed success. Generally, the move has been in the right direction.
As for Muslims not fleeing despotism, that could pretty easily be debated. However, even if they move for economic reasons, you need to realise that prosperous nations aren’t prosperous by accident, and poor nations aren’t poor by accident. I realise it’s terribly un-PC to suggest this, but prosperous nations are prosperous because they’re civilised and poor nations are poor because they’re despotic. Therefore, people leave despotic nations because of direct reasons (ie. persecution) or indirect reasons (ie. such nations retard economic opportunities and growth). Either way, they flee despotism. It’s not surprising then that given the choice, people would move to a free, civilised, prosperous nation than another despotic nation.
“so why does Hitler (or the Serb Militias, or the Maronite clergymen, etc) speak for all Christians?”
Have you ever spent time with Lebanese Maronites? They are the most hateful bunch I have came across. These people still cannot get over the fact that they were to blame for their messed up civil war, and they still have the nerve to engage in a victimization mentality by claiming to be victims of Islamic aggression *yawn
I suggest you should spend some time on the LF website and see what they really think of us, and it is a fair note to say that the LF does represent a lot of Maronite Catholics that bend over for the French. Brigitte Gabriel comes to mind.
So how do you explain the major economic growth that was evident in South Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia during their despotic rule in the mid 20th century?
This thread’s been officially jacked. I’m to blame.
Still, its fascinating that such a minor comment in the original post could spawn such a tangent.
ps - Dubai is despotic.
My apologies Ali. I should have known better than to continue on the thread-jacking.
Still better than living in neighboring KSA lol
…
But anyway, the holocaust thing aside, good post. I didn’t even think of the social pressures issue.
You want an Islamic court, move to the gulf.
[...] Statements re: Sharia in the UK Thank you, Ali. I have been waiting for a response like this. Via [...]
Danial: I was not saying that all despotic nations are poor, and I should have qualified it more. Those despotic nations that have been successful (and you could put Taiwan in there for much of its history) have been so because the despotism didn’t target the economy, but sought to boost it. They didn’t have any ideology to push other than economic prosperity. Under those circumstances, a society can become prosperous in the short term, although ultimately, just like in the West, there has to be a move away from despotism in the long term.
Also, I wouldn’t put Malaysia in the same situation as the other nations you mentioned (as well as Taiwan) since it’s actually been extremely discriminatory to non-Malays. There are plenty of of Chinese-Malaysians outside Malaysia for that very reason. That may not bode well for Malaysia in the long term.
“But I’ve always regarded the Church of England’s official status to be an anachronism - sort of like the Queen. A thing for tour-books, not for real life. Or is it the mere symbolism that counts?”
We have ecclesiastical courts which are backed by the violence of the state (see Andrew Brown’s recent post on Comment is free: “Laws of the land” for his personal experience of this). However, their scope is narrow.
I don’t think you can discount symbolism. What tends to happen in situations like this is as follows: certain religious groups are granted privileges in secular countries due to whatever historical reasons (e.g. bishops in the House of Lords, Jewish religious courts, Sikhs granted protection by the law because the law seems them as an “ethnicity”, Roman Catholic schools).
Muslims, having been told they must integrate and seeing these privileges, usually start making similar demands. This is what I think Williams was addressing. Therefore, we’re left with two credible options: oppose all such privileges for any group or accommodate Muslims too. I don’t think dismissing them makes any sense.
I guess symbolism just doesn’t bother me nearly as much. I’ve been an expat for most of my life, in one capacity or another - and there’s always someone getting at least symbolically favoured because of x, y, and z, while I’m being the weirdo/outsider participating in, say, a Protestant prayer because that’s what traditional. But as long as that favouritism does not affect my daily life in any meaningful sort of way…
Oh, and I should have said expat/immigrant. Because that explains my situation a bit more.
But anyway, it’s not about me - it’s just that my personal perceptions greatly colour my response to the issue at hand.
Nice blog and presentation of the issues.
Has there been a similar one done for the Jewish Beth Dins? No. Has anyone protested against its existence? No. Does anyone really care? No.
As someone else mentioned also, other minorities get special rights in the law, but when muslims ask for the same rights, they are scolded and told to “go home”.
People are quick to dismiss Hitler and the Nazis and non-christians, despite Hitler declaring himself to be a Christian doing God’s work. They are usually the same people who are quick to say “islamic terrorism” and “muslim terrorists”.
Whether conscious or not, there is a pre-conditioned negative response to anything islamic. The Turkish headscarf for instance: British people found it personally provocative that Turkey is considering to repeal the headscarf ban and comments even went so far as to suggest muslims were itching for a fight.
The issue becomes less of “Should we allow Sharia courts” and more of “Why do we allow everyone else these rights but are outraged if muslims want them too”.
Well as an example, consider what a Sharia arbitration court would mean for women. As outlined in the main post, women could be socially coerced into these arbitration courts, then would be stepped on by the inevitably patriarchal judges/arbitrators/mullahs/imams/whoever. A woman’s testimony isn’t the same as a man’s, women get less in inheritance, women would have a hard time initiating a divorce…
So yeah, non-Muslims would be outraged at these kinds of things, but Ali (and most of the other posters here) are Muslim and don’t support the idea. I don’t hear (or at least I’m not aware of) Jewish people complaining the Beth-Din courts are unfair.
Oh, Canada! They have it right.
As for England, they have to disestablish the Church and end religious arbitration, as many here have said (which I find encouraging).
With all the evidence we have that mingling state power and religion leads to trouble, why have these institutions? They exist only to placate zealous individuals who feel that their piety gives them authority.
Well, it doesn’t, and setting up religious arbitration forces people to appear to denigrate their own faith if they choose a secular court to hear a civil matter.
Time to wake up!
“I don’t hear (or at least I’m not aware of) Jewish people complaining the Beth-Din courts are unfair.”
http://www.agunot-campaign.org.uk/
Bit of a tacky website, but touche.
Good post. Small correction. In 2004, the Arbitration Law was amended, not repealed. The amendment still allows for private arbitration of any dispute, but requires the arbitrator to apply Ontario law in a family law dispute and provides some training and educational requirements in order for arbitrators to be licensed by the province.
well.. on the subject of Beth Din, I’m not a jew let alone Orthodox but the Jewish Law is laid down for Centuries and quite specific.
That said:
sorry.. do away with Religious Court arbitration and no least,
Disestablish the CoE
You can STILL have a national cathedral and Anglican Clergy can still provide services like coronations and stuff.
But let Williams be known as the Archbishop who was the idiot aho disenfranchised his own church.
Perhaps the West might have stumbled onto the first smoldering embers of hope toward a liberalization of Islam. If Muslim women can secure equal rights with men, then women may begin building their own lives, among other women, and their children, seeking lives seperate from the communities shackled to their familiy’s honor system, and piety. Perhaps being socially ostracized is a blessing in disguise if there is a caring, supportive, loving network awaiting these brave women.
[...] As a Muslim I would raise my hand to say that I will never support Sharia law to become paramount to secular civil law. On this I am in complete agreement with Ali Eteraz. Read his article on why Sharia arbitration courts should be opposed in the UK. [...]
[...] law in any way or form. On this I am in complete agreement with Ali Eteraz. Read his article on why Sharia arbitration courts should be opposed in the UK. Notice that most of the articles full of enraged, spittle-flecked derision in the tabloids and in [...]
[...] under liberal secular legal codes in Europe and compares them to voluntary mediation; another by Ali Eteraz raises the very important questions of whether parallel religious adjudication or mediation can [...]
[...] Ali Eteraz, the indefatigable Muslim blogger, having listed the multitude of objection to the Sharia proposal, [...]
I like your article
You mention the law of the land should apply, that you mean your land or is it my land, I became Muslem, and I have the right to chose the way I want to marry or devorce.
Also Why don’t you write about the unjust secular system that we have to put up with, It seams that you have not asked any man who have got devorce, Man loose all, women get everything. Its a very fair and just system, isn’t it.
And also about your tax money that might pay for a muslem or a Jewish Judge, it is also my tax mony, and I think that I have a right to chose where my tax go to.
Please get your facts right befor you attack any culcher or faith,.
All of us have to live together in harmony and peace, you have to learn to accept other people for what they are, as we have to accept your secular ideas.
Regards
Jason