Discussion:
Sharia a threat to Britain's future as 'tolerant' society by Douglas Murray
(too old to reply)
j***@satx.rr.com
2010-01-11 16:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Sharia a threat to Britain's future as 'tolerant' society

'To what extent is Sharia Law already operating in Britain? To what
extent is Sharia Law incompatible with British Law?'

by Douglas Murray
Posted in The Times
http://tinyurl.com/yk36p5a
January 10, 2010

In February 2008 the 104th Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan
Williams delivered a lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice titled
'Civil and Religious Law in England : a Religious Perspective.' The
Archbishop talked about Islamic sharia law and compared sharia courts
in the UK to the Jewish 'Beth Din' courts. The next day, on BBC Radio
4's 'World at One' the Archbishop gave an interview which appeared to
make his point much more explicit.

Whilst conceding that he was 'no expert' on sharia law, he related
what he understood it to be, rebutted suggestions that it was a
monolith and denied that its most famous and brutal manifestations -
in Saudi Arabia for instance - were typical.

It was put to him that sharia was 'incompatible with democracy' and
therefore hard to incorporate into British life as he appeared to be
advocating. The Archbishop replied: 'That's a pretty sweeping
judgment.' Whilst repeatedly stressing the complexity of the tradition
of Sharia, and once again citing the Beth Din as a precedent for the
integration of religious courts in British law, one particular phrase
stood out.

'...now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an
important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal
democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that
means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which
shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take
some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, "There
is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and
anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is
completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts". I think that's
a bit of a danger.'

This quotation, combined with the Archbishop's assertion that 'the
application of Sharia in certain circumstances' in the UK was
'unavoidable' caused extensive press comment.

'What a burkha.' railed the Sun's front-page. Television channels
accompanied reports of the Archbishop's comments with footage of
sharia beatings in Africa and elsewhere. The leaders of all major
political parties united to condemn the comments and so did a complete
sweep of the British press. The country seemed to have awoken to the
suggestion that sharia would inevitably become part of British life
and, without caring to listen for the detail, the nation appeared to
respond with a single resounding 'no.'

The issue died down until July when the retiring Lord Chief Justice of
England and Wales, Lord Phillips, gave a talk on 'Equality before the
law'. He described sharia as suffering from 'widespread
misunderstanding.' Whilst admitting that stoning, the chopping-off of
hands and flogging would be unacceptable, he backed sharia principles
being applied to marriage arrangements in the UK and was supportive of
the sharia finance initiatives which the Treasury had observed since
2002. Lord Phillips said: 'There is no reason why sharia principles,
or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or
other forms of alternative dispute resolution [with the
understanding] ... that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the
agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the Laws of England and
Wales.'

And so the most senior judge in England followed the most senior
member of the national church in backing the integration of elements
of sharia law into British life. However low-level the sharia they
were advocating might have been, they propelled the issue to the
forefront of the nation's consciousness. And there it has stayed.

Rightly so. For the story is about more than itself - about what we
are as a society, and about what we might become. English common law
is one of the cornerstones of our society. As Roger Scruton has
written, one of the most remarkable things about English legal
thinking is that is has 'remained concrete, close to human life and
bound up with the realities of human conflict.' No greater contrast
with the fixed edicts of sharia could be imagined. And so the sharia
debate goes right into the heart not just of contemporary Britain, but
also about whether the country remains capable of defending its
traditions, and capable of drawing lines in the sand.

And it is also about something more: about whether rights which
British people have fought for, and attained, after generations will
genuinely be extended to all - or whether the process of multicultural
fragmentation will extend to allowing people born into certain
communities to live parallel lives, judged by parallel laws. The
debate speaks of the limits of multiculturalism and the more specific,
fundamental issue - of the future of Islam in Britain.

Sharia law is Islamic law. And there is no single sharia. Rather it is
an array of competing and contending schools of interpretation derived
from two principle sources: the Koran (the book which Muslims believe
to have been dictated to Mohammed by God via an archangel) and the
Hadith (or 'sayings' of Mohammed).

The problems for any system of law based on these texts are huge. Not
just because of the problem of sources, interpretation and the
confusions surrounding the lack of a single recognised figure of
authority within Islam. But also because of what one can sum up as the
basics of sharia: for what unifies different interpretations of
Islamic law is often more revealing than what separates them. Though
there is no single acknowledged interpretation of sharia, it is more
than possible to summon up its general trends - the directions in
which it leans.

The European Court of Human Rights, set up under the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is just one of the institutions
worldwide which has deemed sharia to be not just at odds with, but
actively 'incompatible' with human rights. As a signatory to the ECHR
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Britain has
acknowledged the incompatibility of sharia with our own legal system.

Acceding to the same logic from the opposite side, Islamic countries
have objected to the Universal Declaration. In 1990 they set up a
parallel declaration - the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in
Islam.

Thus both sides have acknowledged in their own ways that sharia and
the liberal democratic norms and rights of Western democracies are not
compatible. The stumbling blocks are not in mere details. They go to
the centre of what liberal democratic societies have fought for
centuries to develop and sustain. There is a lacuna at the heart of
sharia and Islam itself on core issues - not least the rights of half
of the species.

Islamic scriptures routinely accord women half the rights accorded to
their male kin. Verse after verse in the Koran discriminates against
them in this and other ways. Many Muslims may disagree, but in Islam's
core-texts women are repeatedly deemed to possess half the worth of
men. If these texts were no longer considered relevant they would not
be an issue. Judaism and Christianity also have violent and
misogynistic verses in their scriptures. But Judaism and Christianity
have moved on from literal interpretation of their texts. They have in
the main developed into monotheisms which see scripture as a guide
rather than a rule-book.

Islam is different. Partly because Muslims believe their holy book to
have been dictated direct by god, rather than merely inspired by god,
Islam has a unique doctrinal issue at the heart of the faith. This
might possibly be overcome. But for the present Islam remains the only
Abrahamic faith which at its highest levels continues to see
intransigence as a virtue and interpretation as vice.

Sharia, therefore, mandates how the followers of Mohammed should
behave. It governs their lives from the smallest thought to the
greatest action. The treatment of women is fundamental to this way of
looking at the world. Sharia mandates, for instance, that women accord
to strict dress codes. It also rules that they should inherit only
half the wealth of their brothers and sees their testimony in court as
worth only half that of a man. In sharia a man is allowed four wives,
but a woman only one husband. And while a man can divorce his wife
with great ease, it is exceedingly difficult for the woman to leave
her husband. All this is laid down in the Koran. It also finds backing
in the example of the polygamous and - by contemporary standards at
least - misogynistic precedent of the life of Mohammed himself. These
facts, as we will see, continue to have an extraordinary impact on the
lives on women in Britain today.

It is not only in the treatment of women that Sharia law finds itself
in intrinsic opposition to British and European norms of human rights
and law. Other aspects of sharia are equally incompatible. Consider
the treatment of minorities. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, mandates that all people must be allowed 'freedom of
speech and belief and freedom from fear' as well as 'freedom of
thought, conscience and religion'. Yet in the Islamic tradition and
the modern interpretations of the four main Sunni schools and the Shia
school that developed after Mohammed's death, no such freedom exists -
either in theory or practice.

Sects within Islam which are disputed by the major schools have been
stamped out throughout the history of Islam. Mohammed himself
slaughtered whole tribes who did not accept his 'revelation'. And to
this day all schools of Islamic law agree that those who leave Islam -
apostates - must be punished with death. Though awarded a certain
respect as 'people of the book' the best that Jews and Christians can
hope for in an Islamic society is to be afforded second-class citizen
status - a position known as 'dhimmitude'. Historically, the 'dhimmis'
are permitted to live in a Muslim society only if they accept their
second-class station, pay a special tax (the 'jizya') and submit to
the authority of Muslims. 'Polythesists' - Hindus and others - have
not, historically, been so fortunate.

Sharia has further problems - again derived from the sayings, writings
and example of Mohammed - including the fact that one of its central
pillars is the practice of violent jihad (holy war). Indeed, jihad is
supposed to be one of the fundamental duties of all Muslims. The
medieval jurist Ibn Taymiyah (1263 - 1328) wrote that 'Jihad against
the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the
most important action for the sake of mankind.' The decision as to
when and where such jihad is appropriate is open to considerable
discussion, but its position at the heart of the Koran and therefore
the sharia is not. At its lowest level the practise of violent jihad
is mandated in defence of the ummah (the Muslim world) and fellow
Muslims from perceived aggression. This is jihad as a defensive
operation.

But numerous verses also extol offensive jihad - specifically against
non-Muslims. For instance: VIII, 12, 'I will instill terror into the
hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then.' VIII, 39-42
says, 'Say to the Infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what
is now past shall be forgiven them; but if they return to it, they
have already before them the doom of the ancients.' IX, 39 reads, 'If
you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your
place.'

Finally, there is the fundamental incompatibility at the heart of
sharia of the system of punishment known as 'hudud'. Sharia
punishments range from lashing and beating, to the amputation of limbs
(including the amputation of an arm and a leg on alternate sides of
the body) whilst death sentences include death by stoning, beheading
and crucifixion. Last December the Hamas government in the Gaza
reintroduced hudud punishments, including crucifixion, in the
territory.

These are of course the most aggressively visible face of sharia and
as such are both highlighted by the media and down-played by many
embarrassed Muslims. But it would be wrong to think that such aspects
are either consigned to history or even to the extreme margins of the
faith.

In 2006 the largest group claiming to represent British Muslims, the
Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) appointed a new head. Iqbal Sacranie,
the previous head of the MCB had been a cause for easy attack for some
years for his notorious comments on the Satanic Verses affair. He had
said at that time that death was 'too good' for Salman Rushdie. His
successor, Abdul Bari, was apparently cut from the same cloth. In an
interview with the Telegraph, he was asked if stoning was ever
justified? 'It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances,'
he answered. 'When our prophet talked about stoning for adultery he
said there should be four [witnesses] - in realistic terms that's
impossible.' Islamic cultures throughout history have proved
otherwise.

Abdul Bari was not alone in refusing to condemn a strict
interpretation of Koranic scripture. In 2003 the Muslim writer (and
grandson of Muslim Brotherhood leader Hasan al Banna) Tariq Ramadan
declared on French television - in a debate with Nicholas Sarkozy -
that as a progressive step there should perhaps be 'a moratorium' on
the stoning of women. Although he was - and still is - widely
described as a 'reformer', Ramadan was unwilling to call for an
outright rejection of such medievalism.

The Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, is one of the most revered
authorities in contemporary Islam, and is frequently referred to by
Western leaders as a source of wisdom on the interpretation of
sharia.

In 2007 the Grand Mufti was reported to have said in a Washington Post
- Newsweek discussion that people should be free to choose their
religion. This would have been unprecedented from such an authority,
meaning among other things, that the traditional sharia punishment of
death for apostasy from Islam could be debated and perhaps
overturned.

But shortly afterwards, Gomaa declared that he had been misquoted by
'Zionists'. He was then reported to have declared that apostates from
Islam should not be killed unless they then spoke against Islam - in
which case they could be targeted. In an official statement he
clarified his position: 'What I actually said is that Islam prohibits
a Muslim from changing his religion and that apostasy is a crime,
which must be punished.'

In 2006, during Israel's war with Hezbollah, the Grand Mufti declared
that it was the 'religious duty' of every Muslim to support Hezbollah
in their fight against Israel. He is not a fringe figure, nor, by the
standards of Islamic spokesmen, is he particularly extreme. The
Foreign and Commonwealth Office has courted him and advocated him as
an example of a progressive cleric.

I have discussed here aspects of sharia which were obviously not those
which Rowan Williams or Lord Phillips were suggesting should be
incorporated into British public life. But their centrality to sharia
should certainly make members of the British establishment
commentators pause.

**

Given sharia's harsh tenets it is perhaps not surprising that the way
it has found its way to acceptance in British life has been not just
surreptitious, but soft. In particular, it is the 'soft sharia' of
sharia finance which has provided what Islamists believe to be the
first acceptance, and its critics the 'thin end of the wedge', of
sharia in the UK.

Yet the whole concept of sharia finance is a contradiction in terms.
In 7th century Arabia, where Mohammed claimed to have received his
revelations, there was no organised banking system. There were no
bonds, no pensions and no mortages. There was, in other words, nothing
in existence akin to anything which people in contemporary Britain
know as finance. Yet 'Islamic finance' or 'sharia finance' have become
commonly heard terms in recent years.

Western commentators and leaders such appear to be under the
impression that sharia finance is intrinsic to Islam - an ancient and
unalterable position. In fact, as the scholar Timur Kuran has shown in
his book 'Islam and Mammon', it is an entirely 'invented tradition'.
It is not a millennia-old necessity of faith for Muslims. It was made
up in 1940s India.

The idea of an Islamic economics 'that is distinctly and self
consciously Islamic is very new' writes Kuran. He notes that a Muslim
to whom you mentioned the words 'Islamic economics' a century ago
would not have known what you were talking about. The whole thing was
primarily the invention of one man - Abul-Ala Mawdudi (1903-1979),
together with Hasan al-Banna and Sayid Qutb, one of three principal
god-fathers of the twentieth-century's revival of Islamic
fundamentalism.

Mawdudi's explicit hope was that his system of Islamic finance would
enable Islam to enter the modern age without having to compromise or
Westernise. His newly invented Islamic banking scheme assisted one of
his primary goals - the minimalization of contact between Muslims and
non-Muslims.

The scholar Patrick Sookhdeo quotes a Mawdudi follower, and senior
member of the party Mawdudi founded, Jama'at-i Islami, in explaining
that: 'Resurgent Islam represents a new approach - that is, to strive
to reconstruct the economy and society in accordance with Islamic
ideals and values.'

In the mid-1960's Islamic finance started to become a minor academic
discipline. But it was only in the wake of the 1973 oil-crisis that a
number of major Middle-Eastern oil powers saw the real attraction of a
separate banking entity for the Ummah, independent of the West. In
1975, the world saw the establishment of the first commercial sharia
banks, the Islamic Development Bank and the Dubai Islamic Bank.

The notion of sharia finance grew steadily throughout the 1980s and
'90s, becoming, as Mawdudi had hoped that it would, as something which
Muslims would more and more feel obliged to participate in as part of
their role in being good Muslims.

Like all sharia, sharia finance derives its basic rules from Islam's
primary texts. Yet, as I have noted, when it came to finance, Mohammed
understandably did not have very much to say.

One fundamental precept of sharia finance is its objection to the
earning of interest on investments. This objection is based on one
Koranic verse in particular: 'O believers, devour not usury, doubled
and redoubled, and fear you God; haply so you will prosper' (Arberry
translation, Book III, verse 125). 'Riba' (interest) is therefore
deemed 'haram' ('forbidden').

Christian and Judaic texts also contain condemnation of usury, but
have found ways around literal following of the texts. Muslim finance
attempts to sustain its distaste for usury, true to the literal
telling of the texts, and has therefore developed elaborate methods by
which, ostensibly, to obey such verses.

The result is not only convoluted, it is also debatable whether it
even obeys the verses in question. As Irfan al-Allawi of the Center
for Islamic Pluralism puts it: 'although they say that this is Islamic
banking this is not, because they're taking interest. They change the
wording. You're not taking a mortgage out, you're taking a loan and
renting a property, so in actual fact it's not sharia.' Nor is the
rejection of riba consistent even in the most authoritarian Islamic
societies.

On top of the inconsistencies in practice, there is also some
controversy over the actual meaning of 'riba' in Islamic tradition.
During Mohammed's time, if a debtor failed to repay a loan made to him
his debt would be doubled. This could be repeated each time he
defaulted on a loan and could lead to him having to be sold into
slavery. Therefore, some scholars argue, Mohammed's words on this
matter were simply a response to a particularly brutal aspect of the
society in which he was writing rather than an objection to a simple
financial practice.

Though there is certainly room for debate, the most literalist schools
have in this case - as in so many others - consistently won through.
Their objection to riba is particularly intense, refusing to allow the
charging of interest to remain solely a sin - as it were - of the
heart. For instance, the early and renowned Persian commentator on the
Koran Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923) wrote: 'Whoever kept
dealing with Riba and did not refrain from it, then the Muslim leader
should require him to repent. If he still does not refrain from Riba,
the Muslim leader should cut off his head.' Prominent contemporary
scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his 1994 book, 'The Lawful and
Prohibited in Islam', maintain similar lines.

As Allawi pointed out after a visit to Saudi Arabia: 'In Mecca, the
Saudis have these big shopping malls and they rent them out for shops
and are making 200%, if they're accumulating interest there. And again
that's supposed to be forbidden in Islam, how can you say here we need
halal banking. Because I'm sure deep down they know that it's not
Islamic banking. They're trying to camouflage it, they're trying to
make themselves feel better.'

Despite the obscure origin of the concept of sharia finance, despite
the fact that the first generation of Muslim immigrants into post-war
Britain would have had no idea what such a thing was, and despite its
more recent Islamist connotations, the British government has in
recent years chosen to accept it without criticism or even question.

In 2000 the Bank of England, together with the Treasury, formed a
working group to look at how to enable the development of Islamic
finance within the UK. Since 2003 the Financial Services Authority,
Treasury and Revenue and Customs have been introducing changes to the
tax and regulatory systems which allowed UK companies to offer Islamic
financial products.

In March 2006 the then-Chancellor, Gordon Brown met privately with
self-appointed Muslim leaders to discuss the issue of Islamic finance.
And on 13 June of the same year he addressed the Islamic Finance and
Trade conference in London, organised by the Muslim Council of Britain
(MCB) which, I repeat, has strong links to Islamist ideology. Brown,
reasonably, called for stronger trading links between the UK and
Muslim countries. But he also declared that he wanted to make the UK a
centre for Islamic investment. He praised the MCB for its help with
reforming recent regulatory measures which had, he explained, now
ensured that Britain's financial frameworks were compliant with
sharia. He also praised the MCB's assistance on the expansion of
Islamic mortgages which had by 2006, after three years, become worth
over half a billion pounds.

The Islamic finance industry is now growing at 15% a year worldwide.
Emile Abu-Shakra of Lloyds TSB has said that their research suggests
that out of 2 million UK Muslims, three-quarters want banking services
supposedly 'in line with their faith'. The Islamic Bank of Britain is
the UK's first sharia compliant high-street bank, regulated by the
Financial Services Authority, and with its own Sharia Supervisory
committee, while a further ten major global banks operating in the UK
provide Islamic financial services. Despite the fact that one of the
leading firms involved in sharia-compliant finance in the UK was
Lehman brothers, sharia finance in the UK is booming. In the last
decade the market measured by sharia-compliant assets has grown from
$150 billion in the mid-1990s to $700 billion in 2007. London now
offers a secondary market in sukuk valued at $5 billion. To reflect
this growth, the Markfield Institute in Leicester and the University
of Reading in 2008 started enrolling for a new Islamic finance degree
- the first degree in the UK to be taught by Islamic specialists to
obtain an MSc in Investment Banking and Islamic Finance.

Why is this a problem, or a potential problem?

First - an acceptance of Islamic finance accepts the moral stances of
sharia. Islamic banks will not deal in any activities deemed to be
haram. So there is to be no trade or investment in alcohol, pork
products, pornography or arms-trading. There is also, from the point
of view of non-Muslims, the pointless complexity of the whole
enterprise. Since riba is haram, wealth can only be generated through
legitimate trade investment. Profits are shared between the supplier
and customer.

In December 2008, the Treasury published a document 'The development
of Islamic finance in the UK: the Government's perspective'. It was
more than a financial document - it was a document which revealed a
particular vision of a society. Echoing the Archbishop of Canterbury's
words, the document described the introduction of sharia-compliant
finance as 'inevitable'. 'The UK has a strong and proud tradition of
openness and flexibility' stated the Economic Secretary to the
Treasury in his foreword, 'which, combined with London 's position as
a leading international financial centre and a significant Muslim
population, provides a strong foundation for growth.' The document
also stated that the 'The Government believes that the growth of
Islamic finance in the UK is beneficial to all UK citizens.'

Above all there is the serious problem of who is to decide what is
acceptable investment and what is haram. As the UK government's
December 2008 document says, 'It is the role of Shariah scholars to
determine whether a financial product or service is compliant with the
Shariah principles.'

Among the serious issues is what happens to the 'zakat'. Zakat is the
percentage of earnings which Muslims are obliged to pay to charitable
causes as a 'tithe' from their earnings. It is up to clerical
authorities to decide where the zakat goes. Such authorities currently
include the European Council for Fatwa and Research headed by the
extremist cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. According to former US counter-
terrorism official Richard Clarke, members of the Accounting and
Auditing Organisation for Islamic Financial Institutions include
organizations implicated in the funding of al-Qaeda.

It is the job of just such authorities to decide what at any one time
might constitute a haram product. The British, and indeed Danish,
economies may be able to cope with a banking system which does not
deal in their bacon products. But what would the UK government do if
scholars decide that products from allied countries cannot be traded?
Would Israeli products develop a haram label? Or, some time in the
future, goods from America or Britain herself?

Much will depend on who the government takes directions from, and who
it permits to make such judgements. Their record so far has not been
impressive. Boards which make the decisions on what is haram and what
is not are already thought to have included extremist clerics like
Qaradawi, while the UK government's continuing reliance on the
reactionary MCB bodes exceedingly badly about the direction in which
Britain and specifically Britain's Muslims are expected to go.

In the section titled 'Involving community leaders', the government's
2008 document states that a future priority is to 'raise awareness'
among Britain's two million Muslims, using 'existing community
infrastructure, such as mosques, to disseminate information on issues
of personal finance.' Once again, the government is promoting dealing
with Britain 's Muslims only through the most conservative and
clerical avenues. The document goes on to state that, 'Some industry
practitioners have previously considered a roadshow-style event where
a group of Shariah scholars would travel to different areas of the UK
to educate Imams about the basics of Islamic finance.' Since the
document repeatedly cites the MCB as their main source of contact
among 'community leaders' it is not hard to guess what kind of advice
would be given, and the direction in which such 'educated' imams would
lean.

The bottom line is that the government has put its policies towards a
whole swathe of the population into the hands of clerical
reactionaries. It has begun to not just propagate but proselytise the
idea that sharia finance is the norm for Muslims.

It has also propagated the idea that sharia finance can be successful
as a system. As the world's banking system goes through a state of
crisis there appears to be a continuous mirage that some alternative
economic system might be available to save us from our woes - perhaps
doing so in some more 'ethical' or 'charitable' way. It is therefore
worth bearing in mind frankly what sharia finance can actually
accomplish.

One established critic of sharia finance is Timur Kuran, formerly the
King Faisal Professor at the University of Southern California and now
at Duke University. In his view, the aim of reducing poverty and
inequality by the imposition of zakat has succeeded exactly 'nowhere'.
In fact the zakat system has not only failed to transfer resources to
the poor, 'it may transfer resources away from them.' In Malaysia the
zakat system has served as 'a convenient pretext for advancing broad
Islamic objectives and for lining the pockets of religious officials.'



Kuran argues that there is no such thing as Islamic banking, just as
there is 'no distinctly Islamic way to build a ship.' Instead the
scheme has 'promoted the spread of anti-modern currents of thought all
across the Islamic world. It has also fostered an environment
conducive to Islamist militancy.'

This is why the encouragement given to the growth of sharia by the
Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the former Lord
Chief Justice, is so divisive and so dangerous.

**

The attitude of British Muslims towards sharia law is changing. The
majority favour British law but a consistently large minority appear
to desire sharia, and the desire appears to be greatest among the
young.

A 2006 social research poll for Channel 4 asked 1,000 British Muslims:
'Would you prefer to live under Sharia law?' 30% of respondents said
that, yes, they wanted to live under Sharia law, 15 % were undecided
and 54% wanted to live under British law. But Muslim respondents aged
between 18 and 44 were twelve per cent more likely than their elders
to prefer living under sharia. Other polls have shown similar results.

An ICM poll in 2006 showed that 40% of 500 Muslims polled wanted to
see sharia law introduced into parts of the UK. A poll conducted for
the think-tank Policy Exchange by Populus the following year showed
37% of Muslims between the ages of 16-24 preferring to live under
sharia. And in 2008 a poll conducted by YouGov for the Centre for
Social Cohesion revealed that two-fifths of Muslim students in the UK
supported the introduction of sharia into British law. The direction
of Muslim attitudes is for an increasing amount of sharia.



Sharia finance is only one way in which the concept of sharia values
are gaining ground. Last September, Britain's debate over sharia law
debate re-erupted, when the Sunday Times ran a major story titled
'Revealed: Britain's first official sharia courts.' The article
reported that 'Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain,
with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.'



The Sunday Times reported that:



'The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to
rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those
involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five
sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial
system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the
rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and
depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.'



The newspaper revealed that a particular set of Sharia courts run by
one Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi were taking advantage of the 1996
Arbitration Act, which allowed the enforcement of properly agreed
arbitrations. The courts, known as the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal
(MAT), were boasting not of new legislation, but of their use of old
legislation. In fact, arbitration can be carried out by any two adult
parties in Britain if the parties have volunteered for arbitration.



In the wake of the Sunday Times piece, the then Shadow Home Secretary,
Dominic Grieve, wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for clarification
as to whether or not any laws had been changed. The Home Secretary's
written response was adamant. Jacqui Smith wrote that 'I must
emphasise that Sharia has no jurisdiction in England and Wales.' She
explained that the MAT had been established in 2007 and are 'a form of
"alternative dispute resolution" (ADR), and do not deal with any
criminal matters.' She also stressed that 'If a decision were to be in
any conflict with English law then it would simply not be
enforceable.'



But the real problem that emerges with the MAT is not that they are
practicing perfectly legitimate ADR, but that they had stepped far
beyond their remit - and into the realm of criminal law. For the MAT
had not only admitted, but boasted, about seven cases in particular
which the government and police should have taken an interest in.



In the first instance, the MAT boasted of having over-seen six cases
of domestic violence cases which had worked 'in tandem' with police
investigations. In each case the women who had been the subjects of
abuse withdrew their complaints from the police whilst the MAT judges
had suggested that the husbands take anger-management classes and
advice from Muslim elders. The Home Secretary said that there was no
evidence from the police that the women had been persuaded to drop
their complaints with the police. Siddiqui said that the marriages had
been saved by giving the couples another chance.

At an event in November 2008 at the Temple in London, Siddiqui was on
a panel chaired by the former President of the Family Division,
Baroness Butler-Sloss. He explained that 95% of the cases which the
MAT oversaw consisted of mediation. What the remaining 5% were was
left uncertain. He stated that in domestic violence cases the MAT
offered couples rehabilitation first and an Islamic divorce after
that. When questioned about his visions for the future, he argued that
a society which 'accepts' same-sex partnerships and mistresses should
be a society which also allows polygamy.



When the Sunday Times broke the news of the activities of the MAT,
their remit was consistently represented by the MCB and others as
simply equivalent to the activities in Britain of the Jewish courts,
the Beth Din. But the Beth Din only hear civil cases - mainly divorce
and business disputes. What is more, the Beth Din never represent
themselves as anything above or equal to the law. This is important
because it is in the case of marital law, and the refusal to tell
women in particular that a religious ceremony is not a legally binding
ceremony that many sharia courts are treading into ground that is
actively illegal.



Consider the case of Gina Khan. She is a Muslim women's rights
campaigner based in Birmingham. Several years ago she attempted to get
a sharia divorce. Many Muslims have portrayed the granting of extra
rights to sharia courts as part of a drive to improve the rights of
women. Khan believes that this concern is a fake:



'What they've really done is use our plight to establish their sharia
courts. They are not at all concerned about what has happened to
Muslim women. If they were, then the first thing they would look at is
the way we get married, and protect us by making sure the marriage is
legal. They're not even doing anything about that.'



This transpires to be one of the central problems. A generation of
Muslim women born in Britain are failing to learn about their basic
rights because the legal system associated with sharia is holding
itself out not as merely parallel to British law, but as something
which has replaced British law.



Gina Khan took me to meet a woman from Birmingham whose daughter had
been married in an Islamic ceremony at home. Her husband left her
after a short period of marriage, and it was only then that the
daughter discovered she was not married in the eyes of the law. Her
husband, a solicitor, knew this. The family appealed to the UK courts
for help, but as the mother said, 'they threw the case out on the
basis that there wasn't a recognised marriage.' It turned out that the
man was already married and was carrying out a polygamous Islamic
marriage.



Worse was to come. The girl's mother sought advice from the leader of
Birmingham central mosque, one of the heads of the local sharia
courts. Dr Mohammed Naseem is a former candidate for George Galloway's
Respect party and one of the leaders of the Islamic Party of Britain,
which among other policies advocates the execution of homosexuals.
Immediately after the July 2005 London suicide bombings he declared at
a press conference in Birmingham that despite forensic and CCTV
evidence he did not believe that the attacks had been carried out by
Muslims.



Dr Naseem offered the mother no assistance at all. But while she was
at his mosque she was aware that women were coming to Naseem to get
Islamic divorces. These were being issued - for a price - and the
woman saw Naseem taking the money for acting as a judge able to
dissolve a marriage. They were paying £130 each time.



Gina Khan says that this do-nothing approach from clerics posing as
judges is no isolated case. 'All around Birmingham' she says, 'there
isn't a single mosque that supports women in cases of domestic
violence.' Nevertheless, Khan says that the West Midlands Police seem
to believe that the only way to approach issues relating to Muslim
women is through the mosque. "That is a myth. You can't turn to the
imams and expect them to support you.'



During the seventh century some of the attitudes towards women which
Mohammed came up with might have seemed relatively progressive. But if
Islamic scriptures are immutable, as most Muslims believe, then they
cannot even start to appear progressive for our own times. As Khan
puts it, 'Our rights have been frozen for fourteen hundred years.'



As Khan points out, women who have escaped countries where there are
harsh regimes and laws have often come to Britain precisely because it
is a free country. In many cases they come here to escape sharia. 'To
give Mullahs power over the community is a step backward.'



Many of those who have argued for sharia's incorporation into Britain,
and those who compare it with the Beth Din, focus on the 'voluntary'
side of it. Surely if a woman 'volunteers' to be judged by a sharia
court there can't be any objection? But the core of the problem is
that it is almost impossible for any outside to know if a Muslim woman
in the ghettos of Sparkhill in Birmingham, or parts of Luton or
Bradford has actually 'volunteered'.



Khan had been forced to move out of the Muslim area she lived in
because of intimidation and threats. 'There would be pressure,' says
Khan. 'If I said I was going to the police... there's an element of
honour and shame that you don't go to non-Muslims. You don't go to the
British. We don't want the police at the door because it brings
dishonour. You don't want to go to the courts system because it brings
dishonour. So then I would be told "You know sharia is our law, so
let's go to the sharia council. They will give you justice". There's
nowhere else to go.'

The often terrifying pressures upon Muslim women, and others, are
completely ignored by those who advocate strengthening the force of
sharia law over British law.

As Khan says, 'This is supposed to be a secular country and for some
reason we as Muslim women are ending up at the door-steps of Mullahs,
and that shouldn't be happening.' The people who are propelling sharia
are, she says, 'dragging Muslim women backwards.' Her own experience
in recent years attests to this. The 'little kangaroo courts' that
Gina Khan went to 'didn't do anything.' 'They didn't care that I gone
through domestic violence. They didn't care that my husband wasn't
providing me with anything. They didn't care that he was going to make
me homeless or whatever. They didn't care about none of these things.
The only thing that happened was an alcoholic Mullah rang me at 11
o'clock and made a pass.'

**

In my research two names in particular recurred as examples of the
type of people who may well have more and more influence in sharia
courts in Britain if such courts were allowed to thrive. They are
Sheikh Suhaib Hasan and Anjem Choudary, who is a solicitor.

Sheikh Suhaib Hasan is Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia
Council. His vision of a future sharia Britain does not stop at
overseeing marital disputes. In speeches on Islamic websites he calls
for 'the chopping of the hands of the thieves, the flogging of the
adulterers and flogging of the drunkards.' This, he says will allow
the launch of a jihad: 'Then jihad against the non-Muslims, against
those people who are the oppressors.'

Asked whether he approves of the stoning of adulterers he confirms
that he does because he 'never saw any adultery' when he was in Saudi
Arabia. He is a spokesman for the MCB on sharia law. In an interview
last December he said: 'Even though cutting off the hands and feet, or
flogging the drunkard and fornicator, seem to be very abhorrent, once
they are implemented, they become a deterrent for the whole society.
This is why in Saudi Arabia, for example, where these measures are
implemented, the crime rate is very, very, low.'

In a Channel 4 documentary Hasan said that once sharia law was
implemented in Britain, "then you can turn this country into a haven
of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to
steal. Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going
to commit this crime at all. We want to offer it to the British
society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't
accept it they'll need more and more prisons."

Suhaib Hasan now runs a set of courts under the auspices of the
Islamic Sharia Council. The first court was started in Birmingham in
1982. The organisation says that they have heard more than 7,000 cases
in that time, with 95% again relating to divorce. There are now ten
courts run by just this one organisation: three in London, with others
in Dewsbury, Rotherham and other places. Nobody knows what they say
when they are in session, nor what compulsion is felt by those who
attend them.

Suhaib Hasan is a classic Wahhabi scholar of the deeply literalist and
fundamentalist mindset which has produced so many problems in the
Islamic - and wider - world. But compared with Anjem Choudary, Hasan's
views could seem progressive.

Anjem Choudary is a follower of the exiled cleric Omar Bakri (founder
of the terrorist group al-Muhajiroun). He is one of the few leading
members of a number of affiliated, now-banned, organisations who is
not in prison. He has been involved in the violent protests outside
the Danish Embassy in 2006 and the anti-Pope demonstrations outside
Westminster Cathedral in the wake of the Regensburg Address. Though
careful to tread just within the law, he has repeatedly been accused
of glorifying and inciting acts of terror and the recruitment of
violent jihadists. He describes himself as a Judge of the 'Sharia
Court of the UK' and principal lecturer at something called the London
School of Sharia. These courts were started by Omar Bakri who, banned
from returning to Britain, now lives in his native Lebanon. I asked
Choudary what he actually does.

'We have buildings and we have offices but at the end of the day this
is something more national. I deal with cases and I teach in Derby,
Leicester, Birmingham, Luton, all around London and anywhere else
where people require us.' He styles himself as a selfless helper to
Muslims in distress and distances himself from other sharia set-ups.

Choudary advocates an all-or-nothing attitude to sharia. 'It's a whole
system that needs to be implemented together' he says. Yet he conducts
marriages in his courts - about 1,800 so far. Asked if he encourages
people that he 'marries' through these courts to register civilly as
well, he replies 'No'.

'Because once you've gone down that road of registering the
marriage... you're automatically really saying "look, we are accepting
the [non-Islamic] system that goes with it".

For the hundreds of women who Bakri and Choudary have 'married' over
the last fifteen years then, none may be protected in law. The British
state has no idea of who they are, what recourse they have had, or
what future they can expect.

Today the sharia snow-ball is gathering speed. The UK government is
now preparing legislation that would allow the institution of what
they are calling 'sharia pensions.' There is also the new initiative,
advertised by the Guardian last October, of'sharia car-insurance'.

As we went around the most ghetto-ised sections of Birmingham with
Gina Khan - areas she now has to be careful returning to, I asked her
what she thought of the authorities, the Archbishops and Lord Chief
Justices sitting down South who were speaking as authorities whilst
admitting their own ignorance of the system they were propelling - a
vision of society which her daughter's generation might soon be
expected to live by. 'I really do wish that these men wouldn't come
out - especially men in these powerful positions - and make these
statements without having any indication of the consequences for
Muslim women. Who is he listening to? Have they come into the
communities? Start asking the women - finding some real people. This
is Britain, and there should be one law."

The sentiments could hardly be a more appropriate aspiration to the
fundamental rights which the Europe's courts and the UDHR are meant to
grant us all. But the rights which Muslim women might have expected
when they immigrated into Britain two generations ago are not today
the rights which Britain appears to expect of them.

Sharia is based on the writings and declarations of a seventh-century
tradesman. Individuals should be free to choose whether or his words
constitute sacred, divinely dictated, texts and whether to base their
consciences and behavior on its strictures.

But the British state and British law cannot accept that these texts
must be deferred to. They cannot be the basis for law. This country
has fought, and Western society has fought, for many centuries to base
law on reason. The greatness of this system is that totalitarian
systems of law or governance cannot ultimately prevail because they
will dissolve under the glaring light of reason. We have inherited
this right, among other sources, through the Judaeo-Christian
tradition which believes in the interpretability of its texts as well
as from the enlightenment. From Montesquieu and Mill, via a numberless
array of men and women, both famous and unknown, our societies have
fought against the totalitarian grip of scriptures which men and women
were once born into accepting and which they either volunteered to
accept or struggled to throw off.

In 2009 most people born in Britain do not have to go through the
process of shrugging off laws or re-capturing rights not granted to
people in their community. But the piecemeal adoption of Sharia law
presents us with an issue which we have so long taken to be settled
that we have forgotten how we attained it: the problem is what to do
about those who would base laws on textual literalism.

It also presents us with a new challenge, which previous struggles
against literalism did not have to tackle in the same way. We are
allowing different laws to be applied to people of different ethnic
origins. This is the truly shocking thing about the sharia debate.
Like the doctrine of multiculturalism (as opposed to multi-racialism)
which has allowed this debate to flourish, the encouragement of sharia
in British life is based not on equality, or respect for other
cultures, but on unfairness and separate-ness.

It is based on the notion that there are laws which would not be good
enough for me, but which are good enough for you, not good enough for
people born in certain bits or the country, but good enough for
others. It enforces difference and makes double-standards acceptable.
If its future in Britain is indeed 'inevitable' then Britain's future
as a tolerant and pluralistic society cannot be.


-----Douglas Murray is Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion.
This essay was the winner of the 2009 Charles Douglas-Home Award. An
edited version appeared in The Times on 30 December 2009.


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11893
- .. -- Tim .-.
2010-01-11 17:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Sharia a threat to Britain's future as 'tolerant' society
Unfortunately this was too long for me to read it all (I'm still on 'Janet
and John' Book 2), but it is nevertheless interesting.

My view on this is that our civil laws should be secular only, and not based
on any religious views, neither Islamic nor fundamentalist 'evangelical'
Christian, nor any other religion.

Tim.
John Cooper
2010-01-11 17:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by - .. -- Tim .-.
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Sharia a threat to Britain's future as 'tolerant' society
Unfortunately this was too long for me to read it all (I'm still on 'Janet
and John' Book 2), but it is nevertheless interesting.
My view on this is that our civil laws should be secular only, and not
based on any religious views, neither Islamic nor fundamentalist
'evangelical' Christian, nor any other religion.
Even I didn't read it, Tim. My fuse must be shortening as I grow older.

Sharia law will only be a threat to Britain's future as a tolerant society
if the Government lets it be, and if it does, then the real threat to
Britain's future as a tolerant society is the British Government.

Janet and John were excellent reading material, and in the days when they
were used in school, children learned to read and spell. But an educated
population is a critical one.

John Cooper
- .. -- Tim .-.
2010-01-11 20:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cooper
Janet and John were excellent reading material, and in the days when
they were used in school, children learned to read and spell. But an
educated population is a critical one.
John Cooper
Yes, and I went on to attend Woking Grammar School, even though I came from
one of the poorer families on a council estate. That was because in those
days all that was required was that you prove your ability in the 11-plus
exam. The ability of parents to pay didn't come into it, until the Labour
government of the day did away with the 11-plus. Then such education became
the luxury of the privileged few. My old school is now a police station.

Tim.
Robert Marshall
2010-01-11 20:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by - .. -- Tim .-.
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Sharia a threat to Britain's future as 'tolerant' society
Unfortunately this was too long for me to read it all (I'm still on
'Janet and John' Book 2), but it is nevertheless interesting.
My view on this is that our civil laws should be secular only, and not
based on any religious views, neither Islamic nor fundamentalist
'evangelical' Christian, nor any other religion.
I skim read it, but may come back to it later. I was interested in this
Post by - .. -- Tim .-.
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Judaism and Christianity also have violent and misogynistic verses in
their scriptures. But Judaism and Christianity have moved on from
literal interpretation of their texts. They have in the main
developed into monotheisms which see scripture as a guide rather than
a rule-book.
I'll bet that the persons who most agree with the article's subject
around here also disagree most with this paragraph!
But I think this paragraph is integral to his differentiating of UK
courts (with a Christian background) and Sharia.


Robert
--
I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.
-- G.K. Chesterton
- .. -- Tim .-.
2010-01-12 17:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Marshall
Post by - .. -- Tim .-.
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Sharia a threat to Britain's future as 'tolerant' society
Unfortunately this was too long for me to read it all (I'm still on
'Janet and John' Book 2), but it is nevertheless interesting.
My view on this is that our civil laws should be secular only, and
not based on any religious views, neither Islamic nor fundamentalist
'evangelical' Christian, nor any other religion.
I skim read it, but may come back to it later. I was interested in
Post by - .. -- Tim .-.
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Judaism and Christianity also have violent and misogynistic verses
in their scriptures. But Judaism and Christianity have moved on from
literal interpretation of their texts. They have in the main
developed into monotheisms which see scripture as a guide rather
than a rule-book.
I'll bet that the persons who most agree with the article's subject
around here also disagree most with this paragraph!
But I think this paragraph is integral to his differentiating of UK
courts (with a Christian background) and Sharia.
Yes, it is also debatable just how much a literal interpretation ever was
taken.

Tim.
Post by Robert Marshall
Robert
Loading...