Sharia Law in the UK?

[Darat]

From the article:

She told BBC News: "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%?"

Was there some reason to doubt those numbers?

I would consider 40% quite significant if it's true.

That would be 40% of less than 3% of the UK population so at most a percent or two.

 

[Darat]

I would like to calm down and will reserve final judgement for myself when I am able to read the Archbishop's remarks. In the meantime bear in mind that under Sharia the following issues and sanctions attached thereto are considered somewhat extreme if not anachronistic by modern standards:

Religion

Blasphemy - punishable by prison including and up to death
Apostasy - punishable by incarceration and up to the death penalty
Forced Conversion - death to non-believers
Naming Teddy Bears Muhammad - prison and the lash (var of blasphemy?)

Family Law/Marriage-Divorce-

Adultery - punishable by death if comitted by the woman
Marriage without parental permission - punishable by death
Divorce - various depending on circumstance, usually in favor of the man
Dress code - violations punishable by various means including the lash and up to
and including death

...snip...

Only under some forms of Sharia not others. "Sharia" refers to whole set of different interpretations of what "Sharia Law" means. It's akin to making a statement that says "Western law allows the death penalty" - whilst in a sense correct (since some "western" legal systems do) it is rather misleading.

This is not any old clergyman. He is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I wonder how his boss, the Queen, feels about his recommendations.

...snip...

She is not his boss.

 

[Darat]

Because Muslims, just like all other human beings, have rights. They shouldn't be beaten, imprisoned, or killed for offenses that wider society deems the punishment overly excessive and unacceptable. Should we allow the institution of slavery if it was "voluntary" or should we reject it outright as we do now?
Furthermore, it obscures the meaning of the law of the land and would create a very divisive atmosphere between pro Sharia law Muslims, anti Sharia law Muslims, and wider society. In short, it would create a lot of unnecessary conflict and tension.

But he was not arguing for nor said anything remotely like that.

 

[SteveGrenard]

See: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

Thank you.

 

[Wildy]

It's interesting to note that some 100-150 years ago, the Ottoman Empire actually did this - different laws for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Especially on the part of the Christians it was pressured to do this by the then superpowers - Britain and France. How times can change.

Well the Millet system did deal with certain problems, however the problem that you would face in Britain is where the Sharia court stops and the secular court starts. The Millet system dealt with problems between the Millets in a few rather good ways. Disputes between two parties of different Millets were settled by the Millet of the injured party and any dispute involving a Muslim was automatically dealt with by the Islamic Courts.

The Millet system would have worked fine because it also allowed the Millets a reasonable degree of autonomy. I don't know how many British people would want what is basically an autonomous Muslim state in Britain.

As well as that the Millet system seems to work best when you don't have a great separation of Church and State. The system that is used in Egypt for example bases family law on religion. They even have legislation that deals with issues of people of differing religions for things like divorce.

Now how would you be able to sort out divorce proceedings against a couple of differing religions? If the man is a Muslim should the Sharia court decide the divorce or should a secular court decide? Not even a beth din in Britain would have as much power as a Sharia court would have.

Unless you were to limit the power of the Sharia court so it was more in line with other religious courts in the country.

 

[tkingdoll]

I think it's important to look at the Archbish's potential motives for saying this. It's the case that the Anglican church wants to opt out of certain laws, for example gay adoption. Trying to pave the way for Sharia law would give them a huge amount of leverage when asking for exemptions or alternative laws based on their own faith. I think that has a lot to do with his comments.

In 2004 a Guardian poll of 500 British Muslims had 61% wanting Sharia law. I doubt there's an accurate figure, it's a bit of a silly question. I doubt many or any British Muslims want ALL of sharia law, for example.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/islam/story/0,,1362591,00.html

The Jewish comparison is a bit of a red herring, because there are only around 250,000 Jews in the UK and the number is getting smaller by the year. The reverse is true for Muslims.

However, it is true that, for example, Jews are allowed to get married at the location of their choosing, but no-one else is. My personal opinion is, rather than say "oh, one religious group has special rules, so another should get special rules", it would be better to say "no special rules for any religious group, and all existing rules on religious grounds are now repealed". However, that's not going to happen. I think the fairest compromise would be to level the playing field. So rather than just Jews being allowed to marry at any location, let any British citizen marry at any location. If Jews and Muslims are allowed to be cruel to animals, every abattoir should be allowed to be. And it would then become very clear very quickly which rules are right and which are wrong (getting married at the location of your choosing would be popular, being cruel to animals would not). So you then repeal laws based on what is considered right by all of society, which is how the system is supposed to work.

There are already Sharia 'courts' in the UK which deal with many civil and domestic matters.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I am not familiar with any widespread Orthodox Jewish or Christian faiths that call for corporal punishment up to and including death for the above infractions or violations of either religious or family law, at least not in the UK or the U.S. So we need to understand what the sanctions or punishments under a British Sharia court would be for these sorts of violations.

No doubt the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish and Christian bodies of law have also called for these barbaric responses hundreds if not thousands of years ago but not today.

The problem with Islam and the Sharia is that they have not embraced any modern standards and instead hold onto these ancient or historical responses.

I agree with you- the difference between allowing Christians and Jewish bodies of law to regulate and govern their own community and implementing Sharia is that- as bloody a past as all of these faiths have - the first two have reformed over the years and since the Middle Ages are no longer in the practise of actually killing people.

Where it's compatible with civil law, though, I have little objection to Sharia. After all. it also concerns areas of life such as banking, contracts, etc., so it's not all hellfire and brimstone.

 

[SteveGrenard]

It's the case that the Anglican church wants to opt out of certain laws, for example gay adoption. Trying to pave the way for Sharia law would give them a huge amount of leverage when asking for exemptions or alternative laws based on their own faith. I think that has a lot to do with his comments.

Since you brought up the subject of homosexuality what do you think a British Sharia court's position would be on openly gay members of Islam? And while treading this line how would they deal with allowing for polygamous heterosexual unions? Would Moslems be allowed to take more than one wife under the same conditions they could do so back in Saudi Arabia for example? And how would the court handle abortion or out of wedlock births? By executing the mother?

I read the Archbishop's comments on this and I agree he is not calling for a court that operates with the same sorts of punishments we have seen in other countries, especially mostly Moslem ruled countries but the big question is whether he is being naive by giving them the proverbial inch as the old adage goes?

Besides business law and business contracts I understood that such a court in Britain would also deal with both family and religious law; both these sectors, in other countries, often carry excessive barbaric sanctions for violators such as apostates and blasphemers.

 

[ravdin]

Since you brought up the subject of homosexuality what do you think a British Sharia court's position would be on openly gay members of Islam? And while treading this line how would they deal with allowing for polygamous heterosexual unions? Would Moslems be allowed to take more than one wife under the same conditions they could do so back in Saudi Arabia for example? And how would the court handle abortion or out of wedlock births? By executing the mother?

I read the Archbishop's comments on this and I agree he is not calling for a court that operates with the same sorts of punishments we have seen in other countries, especially mostly Moslem ruled countries but the big question is whether he is being naive by giving them the proverbial inch as the old adage goes?

Besides business law and business contracts I understood that such a court in Britain would also deal with both family and religious law; both these sectors, in other countries, often carry excessive barbaric sanctions for violators such as apostates and blasphemers.

My thought on that is if you're openly gay or a blasphemer, then the Muslims have every right to kick you out of their private club*. Or you can recant or repent so they'll let you back in. So long as the guidelines are within civil law, then I have no problem with leaving what you're willing to tolerate from your religious authorities up to the individual.

*Since IMHO it's a crappy club, it doesn't seem like such a severe punishment to me.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because Muslims, just like all other human beings, have rights. They shouldn't be beaten, imprisoned, or killed for offenses that wider society deems the punishment overly excessive and unacceptable. Should we allow the institution of slavery if it was "voluntary" or should we reject it outright as we do now?
Furthermore, it obscures the meaning of the law of the land and would create a very divisive atmosphere between pro Sharia law Muslims, anti Sharia law Muslims, and wider society. In short, it would create a lot of unnecessary conflict and tension.

That wasn't what was being put forward, and I wouldn't support the option you are presenting if it was. This is only to deal with civil matters. No punishments will be handed out.

 

[tkingdoll]

Re: Multiple wives. The UK legally recognises multiple wives as long as the people involved got married in a country where polygamy is legal. But it's extremely unlikely that UK law will ever be changed to allow for polygamous marriages here.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Head of Anglican church faces quit call over Sharia remark

Things appear to be heating up where it counts for the Archbishop.

London (PTI): The head of the Anglican church is facing a crisis of confidence in his leadership and calls for his resignation on Saturday after he suggested adoption of some aspects of Islamic Sharia law in Britain.

Facing a barrage of criticism and call to quit, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams hastily backtracked, claiming he had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims.

But the Archbishop's moral authority, already undermined by the dispute over homosexuality, looked further in jeopardy as prelates from overseas provinces of the Anglican Communion joined in the criticism from members of the General Synod of the Church of England.

Williams in an interview said: "It seems inevitable that elements of the Muslim law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British legislation."

Lord Carey, his predecessor and the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, also challenged his view.

While Prince Charles, Britain's foremost champion of good relations with Islam has distanced himself from the Archbishop's views, privately, he is concerned that the speech is in danger of being taken out of context and distilled into scaremongering headlines, The Times reported on Saturday.

Criticising Williams, Alison Ruoff, a Synod member for London and a member of the Bishop of London's diocesan council, said: "He has done the Anglican Communion and the Church of England no favours. He should go."

The timing of the Archbishop's call for a "supplementary jurisdiction" of Sharia for aspects of marital and financial law and for mediation and conflict resolution could not have been worse. It has come as the Synod prepares to meet at Westminster on Monday.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200802091862.htm

 

[gtc]

The Archbishop's proposals sounds like the sort of arbitration that was part of a subject called Alternative Dispute Resolution when I (briefly) studied law ten years ago.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with two parties agreeing to be bound by the ruling of a third party outside the traditional legal system and it can be cheaper than traditional law (which is why it gets up the noses of many lawyers). Particularly if the scope of judgements is restricted.

However, introducing the option of sharia should be part of broader reform that allows anyone to go to an approved arbitrator and that includes safeguards for those who use the schemes. I don't think that the scheme should be about introducing sharia per-se.

I can think of issues where the party who would be disadvantaged under a particular form of arbitration tries to renounce their acceptance of arbitration. This could be particularly tricky with family law and child access agreements. Does the UK recognise pre-nuptial agreements and does it allow people to specify the sort of access agreements that would occur if the marriage ended?

The way the Archbishop approached the issue is very odd and seems to be damaging the chances that British law will recognise alternative forms of arbitration. This is a pity; as a non-muslim he could have made a good leader on this issue as there would be less opportunity to use the 'thin edge of the wedge' argument about Muslims wanting to start stoning women in English streets*.

*That said, I suspect that many tabloid readers would support chopping the hands off robbers (can I call it a Saudi-ASBO?).

 

[richardm]

But in principle, the idea of letting people pick and choose what sort of law they want to be governed by seems like an entirely just idea.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the object of having laws, though?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The way the Archbishop approached the issue is very odd and seems to be damaging the chances that British law will recognise alternative forms of arbitration.

Except of course that there already are numerous alternative forms of arbitration operating in the UK.

And what is this "British law" of which you speak?

 

[Wildy]

It's probably the imaginary British law, as opposed to English Law, Scots Law or Northern Ireland Law.

In reality I think he means Common Law.

 

[gtc]

Actually, I did type British law when I should have said English law (unless I was just cleverly coining a term for the law in England and Scotlandand Northern Ireland).

The point of mine you quote was about the damage he seems to be doing to the acceptance of arbitration. Instead of being seen as a process that is more acceptable to the parties involved, the press coverage and commentary is portraying it as an end to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The point of mine you quote was about the damage he seems to be doing to the acceptance of arbitration. Instead of being seen as a process that is more acceptable to the parties involved, the press coverage and commentary is portraying it as an end to the idea that we are all equal before the law.

I doubt that either the press or those who start foaming at the mouth as soon as they read the press are aware that there is arbitration taking place, understand what the Archbishop was actually talking about (as opposed to the distorted nonsense screaming from the headlines) or have the intelligence to put the two together.

 

[Big Les]

I'm afraid he, or an adviser, really should have seen this coming. At the end of the day, context notwithstanding, he did state that he thought the adoption of (aspects of) Sharia law was inevitable.

The press have been simplifying things to the point of meaninglessness and needless sensationalism for 200 years now - they aren't about to stop now.

 

[Lothian]

There is a conflict between Sharia Law and UK law and it is right that something is done to assist Muslims in some circumstances, particularly finance.

Muslims are not allowed to make money from money. This means that financial products we take for granted need to be restructured for Muslims.

Take a transaction of buying a car. Say someone wants to by a car for £15,000 but does not have the money to buy it outright. He goes to the bank who lend him £15,000 at 5% over three years. He pays back (roughly) £15,000 x 5% x 3 years = £17250.

Under Sharia Law the Bank can not charge for lending money. One way they get round this is the by bank buying the car for £15,000 and selling it to the customer for £17250.

This conveniently gets round the 'making money from money' problem but does create problems under UK Law.

The bank is now selling a car and liable under the sale of goods act etc.

There is also a taxation issue. In the normal example the £15000 car is subject to VAT. The interest, £2250, is not.

In the Sharia restructuring the whole amount is now for a car and all £17250 is subject to VAT. This means that the bank makes less of a margin on the Sharia transaction. In order to make the same margin the Sharia Bank will have to charge around £400 extra.

The two transactions above are essentially the same; a car goes from the showroom to a customer with a lender compensated for financing the deal. The different contractual nature required by Sharia law penalises both the customer and bank. UK law should not aim to give different results for what is essentially the same transaction.